Refund claim dismissed as time-barred under s.142(5); non-obstante clause read restrictively, merits not decided, self-assessment payments not mere de...
Assessee's project-completion revenue recognition upheld; income addition deleted under Guidance Note/AS-9 and percentage-completion rules as complian...
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders of 09.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 imposing penalty under s.129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017. Although the e-way bill had expired and was not renewed, the vehicle carried the goods and invoices at inspection, and the assessing authority failed to demonstrate any material indicating an intention by the petitioner to evade tax. In the absence of requisite satisfaction as to tax-evasion intent, the technical non-compliance alone could not sustain penalty under s.129(3); accordingly the penalty orders were quashed and the petition was allowed.
The HC allowed the petition and set aside the impugned orders of 09.08.2024 and 30.08.2024 imposing penalty under s.129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Act, 2017. Although the e-way bill had expired and was not renewed, the vehicle carried the goods and invoices at inspection, and the assessing authority failed to demonstrate any material indicating an intention by the petitioner to evade tax. In the absence of requisite satisfaction as to tax-evasion intent, the technical non-compliance alone could not sustain penalty under s.129(3); accordingly the penalty orders were quashed and the petition was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
