Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
The HC dismissed the petition challenging action under section 129(3) of the GST Act, holding that although an e-way bill was ultimately produced before the seizure and penalty orders, it was not generated contemporaneously with movement and was created after interception (at 1:19 p.m.), evidencing non-compliance with statutory requirements; accordingly, the court found no basis to infer absence of intent to evade tax or to disturb the impugned orders. The court applied its prior ratio and upheld the seizure and penalty, concluding that, on the facts and in law, no interference with the administrative orders was warranted.
The HC dismissed the petition challenging action under section 129(3) of the GST Act, holding that although an e-way bill was ultimately produced before the seizure and penalty orders, it was not generated contemporaneously with movement and was created after interception (at 1:19 p.m.), evidencing non-compliance with statutory requirements; accordingly, the court found no basis to infer absence of intent to evade tax or to disturb the impugned orders. The court applied its prior ratio and upheld the seizure and penalty, concluding that, on the facts and in law, no interference with the administrative orders was warranted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
