Faceless reassessment jurisdiction turned on retrospective AO definition, with later faceless-assessment changes treated as clarificatory and procedur...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2121 to 2140 of 96100 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 dismissed the writ petition challenging levy of penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, upholding the proper officer's decision based on his reasonable belief that the consignor's documents did not substantiate legitimacy of the goods in transit. The court accepted evidentiary inconsistencies, including the driver's statement regarding loading time and place and absence of payment particulars, and declined to resolve ownership genuineness on writ jurisdiction. The petitioner remains entitled to seek immediate release of goods under section 129(1)(b) by application to the proper officer (to be decided within two working days) and to pursue available appellate remedies.
The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging levy of penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, upholding the proper officer's decision based on his reasonable belief that the consignor's documents did not substantiate legitimacy of the goods in transit. The court accepted evidentiary inconsistencies, including the driver's statement regarding loading time and place and absence of payment particulars, and declined to resolve ownership genuineness on writ jurisdiction. The petitioner remains entitled to seek immediate release of goods under section 129(1)(b) by application to the proper officer (to be decided within two working days) and to pursue available appellate remedies.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
