Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96046 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 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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
