Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
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.