Retrospective cancellation of charitable registration under section 12AB(4) was unsustainable; related-party benefit allegations did not prove nongenu...
Merger control notice and disclosure rules: Supreme Court limits penalties, rejects reopening of approved combination, and sets aside adverse findings...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
