Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
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...
The HC upheld the levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act for transit of goods without an e-way bill, finding no evidence of technical error or inadvertence, as no e-way bill was generated prior to movement. The presence of a tax invoice with the goods established the petitioner as the owner, and the temporary suspension of the purchaser's registration during transit did not adversely affect liability. The Court relied on precedent attributing an intent to evade tax in absence of an e-way bill at inspection, validating the penalty order. However, the Court modified the impugned orders, directing that proceedings be treated under Section 129(1)(a) instead of 129(1)(b), as the requisite documents accompanied the consignment. The writ petition was allowed in part, with no further interference to the penalty order.
The HC upheld the levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act for transit of goods without an e-way bill, finding no evidence of technical error or inadvertence, as no e-way bill was generated prior to movement. The presence of a tax invoice with the goods established the petitioner as the owner, and the temporary suspension of the purchaser's registration during transit did not adversely affect liability. The Court relied on precedent attributing an intent to evade tax in absence of an e-way bill at inspection, validating the penalty order. However, the Court modified the impugned orders, directing that proceedings be treated under Section 129(1)(a) instead of 129(1)(b), as the requisite documents accompanied the consignment. The writ petition was allowed in part, with no further interference to the penalty order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
