Authentication of paper assessment orders upheld, while qualifying repairs, consumables and vendor advance write-offs remain deductible business claim...
Transaction value cannot be rejected solely on non-statutory valuation guidelines without corroborative evidence supporting reassessment of final cust...
Cross-examination rights and corroborated evidence limit customs penalties for misdeclaration in genuine import transactions involving documented clea...
Tariff classification of vehicle gear components follows the specific gearing entry, displacing motor-vehicle parts classification and related liabili...
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 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
