Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
