Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
221 to 240 of 95833 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 allowed the petition and quashed the impugned seizure and penalty order issued under s.129(3) of the GST Act. The court found that the e-way bill was generated prior to detention and was produced with the reply to the show cause notice before the seizure order was passed, negating any inference of intent to evade tax. In light of the timely documentary production and absence of mens rea, the impugned orders were unsustainable in law. Consequentially, all penal and seizure measures pursuant to the detention were set aside and the petition was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned seizure and penalty order issued under s.129(3) of the GST Act. The court found that the e-way bill was generated prior to detention and was produced with the reply to the show cause notice before the seizure order was passed, negating any inference of intent to evade tax. In light of the timely documentary production and absence of mens rea, the impugned orders were unsustainable in law. Consequentially, all penal and seizure measures pursuant to the detention were set aside and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.