Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for failure to re-validate the e-way bill within the prescribed 8-hour period, accepting the petitioner's claim of vehicle breakdown causing a 15-hour delay. The Court noted the absence of wilful misconduct or tax fraud and found the appellate authority erred in dismissing the defence for lack of documentary evidence, given the circumstances of mechanical repair en route. Consequently, the orders dated 27 December 2023 and 29 August 2024 imposing the penalty and demand were quashed. The petitioners, having already paid the penalty, are entitled to seek a refund, which the authorities must consider within two weeks of application. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for failure to re-validate the e-way bill within the prescribed 8-hour period, accepting the petitioner's claim of vehicle breakdown causing a 15-hour delay. The Court noted the absence of wilful misconduct or tax fraud and found the appellate authority erred in dismissing the defence for lack of documentary evidence, given the circumstances of mechanical repair en route. Consequently, the orders dated 27 December 2023 and 29 August 2024 imposing the penalty and demand were quashed. The petitioners, having already paid the penalty, are entitled to seek a refund, which the authorities must consider within two weeks of application. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
