Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95875 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 upheld the levy of GST and penalty on the petitioner for failing to generate and upload Part B of the E-Way bill, specifically the vehicle details, in violation of Section 129 of the GST Act and Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. The Court affirmed that the primary responsibility to generate Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 lies with the registered person initiating the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The petitioner's contention that the transporter was liable to complete Part B was rejected. The petitioner failed to generate Part B before transporting goods valued at Rs. 7,62,247 over 800 km, rendering the Part A invalid and non-compliant. The delay of three days in updating Part B was held as a substantial violation, not a minor error. Consequently, the impugned order imposing GST and penalty was affirmed, and the petition was dismissed.
The HC upheld the levy of GST and penalty on the petitioner for failing to generate and upload Part B of the E-Way bill, specifically the vehicle details, in violation of Section 129 of the GST Act and Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. The Court affirmed that the primary responsibility to generate Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 lies with the registered person initiating the movement of goods exceeding Rs. 50,000 in value. The petitioner's contention that the transporter was liable to complete Part B was rejected. The petitioner failed to generate Part B before transporting goods valued at Rs. 7,62,247 over 800 km, rendering the Part A invalid and non-compliant. The delay of three days in updating Part B was held as a substantial violation, not a minor error. Consequently, the impugned order imposing GST and penalty was affirmed, and the petition was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
