Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
