Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the 200% penalty levied under s.129 CGST/WBGST was unwarranted and ordering the appellate and original orders set aside. The court found no evidence of mens rea to evade tax, accepted the appellants' undisputed plea of traffic-induced delay and applied the statutory 8-hour extension available to transporter/owner/supplier, leaving only a residual delay which revenue failed to characterise as mala fide. In consequence the HC directed the appropriate departmental authority to refund the penalty already recovered upon receipt of an application by the appellants within eight weeks. The imposition of penalty in a mechanical manner was declared unjustified.
The HC allowed the petition, holding that the 200% penalty levied under s.129 CGST/WBGST was unwarranted and ordering the appellate and original orders set aside. The court found no evidence of mens rea to evade tax, accepted the appellants' undisputed plea of traffic-induced delay and applied the statutory 8-hour extension available to transporter/owner/supplier, leaving only a residual delay which revenue failed to characterise as mala fide. In consequence the HC directed the appropriate departmental authority to refund the penalty already recovered upon receipt of an application by the appellants within eight weeks. The imposition of penalty in a mechanical manner was declared unjustified.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.