Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
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...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
