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...
CESTAT upheld the State Tribunal's factual finding that the movement of goods from the appellant's Indapur unit (Maharashtra) to its Haridwar outlet (Uttarakhand) was occasioned by purchase orders issued by the buyer, constituting an inter-State sale under section 3(a) rather than an intra-enterprise branch transfer under section 6A. The Tribunal's conclusion relied on purchase orders, invoices, stock-transfer challans, lorry receipts and witness statements showing pre-existing contracts of sale and buyer-specific specifications; these findings were not disturbed. However, CESTAT set aside the penalty under section 29(3) MVAT Act as the show-cause procedure was deficient. Appeal allowed in part.
CESTAT upheld the State Tribunal's factual finding that the movement of goods from the appellant's Indapur unit (Maharashtra) to its Haridwar outlet (Uttarakhand) was occasioned by purchase orders issued by the buyer, constituting an inter-State sale under section 3(a) rather than an intra-enterprise branch transfer under section 6A. The Tribunal's conclusion relied on purchase orders, invoices, stock-transfer challans, lorry receipts and witness statements showing pre-existing contracts of sale and buyer-specific specifications; these findings were not disturbed. However, CESTAT set aside the penalty under section 29(3) MVAT Act as the show-cause procedure was deficient. Appeal allowed in part.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
