Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
