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...
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 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
