Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
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.