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...
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, for violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, 2017. The petitioner's claim of no intent to evade tax was rejected due to discrepancies between the declared E-Way Bill loading point and the actual GPS-verified loading location. The vehicle's prolonged stay at Rupnarayanpur confirmed the goods were loaded contrary to the declared dispatch place. Although the petitioner paid the penalty and secured release of goods without protest, this did not constitute waiver of rights. The court found the adjudicating authority's material against the petitioner sufficient and held the petition as meritless and an afterthought, dismissing it in limine.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging the levy of penalty under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, for violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules, 2017. The petitioner's claim of no intent to evade tax was rejected due to discrepancies between the declared E-Way Bill loading point and the actual GPS-verified loading location. The vehicle's prolonged stay at Rupnarayanpur confirmed the goods were loaded contrary to the declared dispatch place. Although the petitioner paid the penalty and secured release of goods without protest, this did not constitute waiver of rights. The court found the adjudicating authority's material against the petitioner sufficient and held the petition as meritless and an afterthought, dismissing it in limine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.