Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
The HC held that in the absence of any intent to evade tax, the imposition of a 200% penalty under Section 129(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for transporting goods without a valid e-way bill was unwarranted. The appellants' reasons for the e-way bill's expiration, which caused highway blockage, were neither disputed nor considered by the authorities. The court noted no dispute regarding the goods, their nature, or transport documents, deeming the case unsuitable for such a heavy penalty. While acknowledging the statutory requirement for a valid e-way bill, the court recognized mitigating circumstances for delay in renewal. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to a notional amount of Rs. 25,000. The appeal and writ petition were allowed, the original penalty order set aside, and the excess amount remitted by the appellants was ordered to be refunded within three weeks.
The HC held that in the absence of any intent to evade tax, the imposition of a 200% penalty under Section 129(1) of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 for transporting goods without a valid e-way bill was unwarranted. The appellants' reasons for the e-way bill's expiration, which caused highway blockage, were neither disputed nor considered by the authorities. The court noted no dispute regarding the goods, their nature, or transport documents, deeming the case unsuitable for such a heavy penalty. While acknowledging the statutory requirement for a valid e-way bill, the court recognized mitigating circumstances for delay in renewal. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to a notional amount of Rs. 25,000. The appeal and writ petition were allowed, the original penalty order set aside, and the excess amount remitted by the appellants was ordered to be refunded within three weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
