Omitted specified domestic transaction provision invalidates related-party expenditure transfer-pricing references and assessments based on consequent...
Preventive suspension requires an immediate continuing threat and cannot become indefinite without inquiry, fresh evidence, or proportionate safeguard...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
