Opportunity to respond to jurisdictional reports is mandatory before customs settlement duty enhancement; connected applications require consistent ad...
Specific customs headings for scaffolding components prevail over general classification, invalidating misclassification proceedings and enabling with...
Liquidator appointment under Section 34 requires consideration of creditor recommendations, valid professional authorisation, and preservation of vali...
Income-tax exemption for specified regulatory fees and government grants applies subject to non-commercial activity and continuing compliance conditio...
Digital accessibility audit and remediation deadlines extended, while all other disability-compliance obligations for regulated entities remain unchan...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.02.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The court held that the vehicle (Reg. No. UP80CT-3246) is properly classified as an open-body truck per the Registration Certificate, a fact not disputed by the State, and therefore could not be treated as a light commercial vehicle as the Appellate Authority retrospectively asserted without supporting material or any clarification from the Transport Department. The record disclosed a discrepancy in the invoiced quantity but no finding of tax-evasion or culpable intent by the authorities below; accordingly the enforcement orders were held unsustainable in law.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders dated 30.04.2019 and 22.02.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The court held that the vehicle (Reg. No. UP80CT-3246) is properly classified as an open-body truck per the Registration Certificate, a fact not disputed by the State, and therefore could not be treated as a light commercial vehicle as the Appellate Authority retrospectively asserted without supporting material or any clarification from the Transport Department. The record disclosed a discrepancy in the invoiced quantity but no finding of tax-evasion or culpable intent by the authorities below; accordingly the enforcement orders were held unsustainable in law.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.