Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
Necessary-party requirements limit impleadment of independent entities, while deferred consideration does not create an appealable adverse determinati...
Food supplement classification requires common parlance and authoritative tests, preventing treatment as proprietary Ayurvedic medicines without suppo...
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.