Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 and allowed the petition, holding that where goods were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice identifying a registered dealer, any liability could only arise under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the Adjudicating Authority erred in computing penalty under Section 129(1)(b). The matter is remitted to the tax authorities to quantify the penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks of the order. The petition is disposed of; parties are directed to comply with the remittal for calculation of the appropriate penalty.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2025 and allowed the petition, holding that where goods were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice identifying a registered dealer, any liability could only arise under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; the Adjudicating Authority erred in computing penalty under Section 129(1)(b). The matter is remitted to the tax authorities to quantify the penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks of the order. The petition is disposed of; parties are directed to comply with the remittal for calculation of the appropriate penalty.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
