Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 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 quashed the impugned orders imposing penalty under s.129(3) of the GST Act and allowed the petition. The court found the record established non-generation of Part B of the e-way bill due to a technical error, which was not disputed, and no authority had recorded any finding of mens rea to evade tax. Absent any proven intent to evade payment of tax, the statutory prerequisite for levy of the s.129(3) penalty was not satisfied. In consequence, the penalty and consequential orders were set aside and the petitioner's challenge succeeded.
The HC quashed the impugned orders imposing penalty under s.129(3) of the GST Act and allowed the petition. The court found the record established non-generation of Part B of the e-way bill due to a technical error, which was not disputed, and no authority had recorded any finding of mens rea to evade tax. Absent any proven intent to evade payment of tax, the statutory prerequisite for levy of the s.129(3) penalty was not satisfied. In consequence, the penalty and consequential orders were set aside and the petitioner's challenge succeeded.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.