Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC set aside the impugned order of 26.08.2025, holding that the Adjudicating Authority erred in computing penalty under Section 129(1)(b) instead of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017; therefore the matter is remitted to the authorities to determine the quantum of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks. The petitioner is directed to deposit the penalty calculated on the value of goods as declared in the tax invoice, whereupon the goods shall be released forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of by consent, with no further adjudication required pending compliance with the directions.
The HC set aside the impugned order of 26.08.2025, holding that the Adjudicating Authority erred in computing penalty under Section 129(1)(b) instead of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017; therefore the matter is remitted to the authorities to determine the quantum of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks. The petitioner is directed to deposit the penalty calculated on the value of goods as declared in the tax invoice, whereupon the goods shall be released forthwith. The writ petition is disposed of by consent, with no further adjudication required pending compliance with the directions.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
