Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9201 to 9220 of 96365 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 held that detention and seizure under section 129 of the GST Act was unwarranted where goods were accompanied by genuine import documents and an e-way bill subsequently produced before the seizure order; the record showed the vehicle and goods transported from one State to another and no dispute as to quality, quantity or weight. The court found no mens rea to evade tax arising merely from a change in place of destination or from a technical glitch in generating the e-way bill. Consequently, the impugned orders issued by the respondents were quashed and the petition was allowed.
The HC held that detention and seizure under section 129 of the GST Act was unwarranted where goods were accompanied by genuine import documents and an e-way bill subsequently produced before the seizure order; the record showed the vehicle and goods transported from one State to another and no dispute as to quality, quantity or weight. The court found no mens rea to evade tax arising merely from a change in place of destination or from a technical glitch in generating the e-way bill. Consequently, the impugned orders issued by the respondents were quashed and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
