Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, directing refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The court held that interception and seizure of electronic goods on account of a mismatch between the vehicle number in transport documents and the actual conveyance, coupled with non-updation of the e-way bill by the transporter, did not establish mens rea or tax evasion by the petitioner. Physical verification revealed concordant tax-invoice entries and serial numbers with the seized items, and the petitioner had notified the change of vehicle in its reply. In absence of discrepancy in goods or serial numbers, proceedings under section 129(3) could not be sustained against the petitioner.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, directing refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The court held that interception and seizure of electronic goods on account of a mismatch between the vehicle number in transport documents and the actual conveyance, coupled with non-updation of the e-way bill by the transporter, did not establish mens rea or tax evasion by the petitioner. Physical verification revealed concordant tax-invoice entries and serial numbers with the seized items, and the petitioner had notified the change of vehicle in its reply. In absence of discrepancy in goods or serial numbers, proceedings under section 129(3) could not be sustained against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
