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...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
