Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
