Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
