Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
