Business expenditure deduction requires proof of genuine commission payments and commercial allowability; turnover growth alone cannot validate the cl...
Article 8 treaty coverage excluded third-party airline support services, while documented demonetisation cash receipts remained accepted business inco...
Functional comparability under TNMM requires highway contract benchmarks to reflect operation, maintenance and transfer activities, requiring fresh be...
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 
