Invoice-based recovery claims remain time-barred despite separate winding-up proceedings, absent valid acknowledgment or part-payment of the disputed ...
Extended limitation fails without specific suppression allegations, while overseas employee secondment remains taxable as manpower supply within norma...
Time-share accommodation classification excludes Club or Association Service where purchasers receive contractual occupancy rights without genuine mem...
CENVAT credit for trading requires reversal, while taxable-service rental credit remains proportionately available and limitation issues await resolut...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
61 to 80 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 held that the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner were unsustainable as the petitioner complied with the statutory requirements under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. The petitioner produced both the invoice issued by it and the E-way bill at the time of interception, which were the requisite documents for lawful transit of goods. Alleged discrepancies raised by the revenue were not reflected in any official notices and thus could not be relied upon to justify detention. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned notices and orders initiating the proceedings, thereby setting aside the detention of goods and terminating the action under Section 129. The writ petition was allowed, resulting in the quashing of Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b), and P3.
The HC held that the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner were unsustainable as the petitioner complied with the statutory requirements under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. The petitioner produced both the invoice issued by it and the E-way bill at the time of interception, which were the requisite documents for lawful transit of goods. Alleged discrepancies raised by the revenue were not reflected in any official notices and thus could not be relied upon to justify detention. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned notices and orders initiating the proceedings, thereby setting aside the detention of goods and terminating the action under Section 129. The writ petition was allowed, resulting in the quashing of Exts.P2, P2(a), P2(b), and P3.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
