Patent-settlement expenditure treated as commercially expedient revenue outlay, with foreign-law restrictions inapplicable before the prospective amen...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 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.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
