Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC quashed the seizure and appellate orders and allowed the petition. The court held that the intercepted goods, a hydraulic excavator sent for repair, did not constitute a taxable supply of goods or services under the GST regime as per the Government circulars treating movement for repair as non-taxable. Consequently, there was no GST liability requiring transport documentation or justification for seizure under section 129(3) of the GST Act. The impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner were declared unsustainable in law and set aside, and the petitioner's challenge was accordingly allowed.
The HC quashed the seizure and appellate orders and allowed the petition. The court held that the intercepted goods, a hydraulic excavator sent for repair, did not constitute a taxable supply of goods or services under the GST regime as per the Government circulars treating movement for repair as non-taxable. Consequently, there was no GST liability requiring transport documentation or justification for seizure under section 129(3) of the GST Act. The impugned orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Additional Commissioner were declared unsustainable in law and set aside, and the petitioner's challenge was accordingly allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.