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 held that seizure of goods was unlawful where a valid e-way bill accompanied the consignment and remained uncancelled, demonstrating genuineness of transport documents and negating any demonstrable intent to evade tax. The absence of the shipping address as an additional place of business and omission of a consignor's official signature on the delivery challan did not, without more, establish culpable noncompliance justifying seizure. The court found that, given the valid e-way bill and accompanying documentation, departmental action amounted to unnecessary litigation and breached statutory safeguards; prior analogous authority supported quashing of such proceedings. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed.
The HC held that seizure of goods was unlawful where a valid e-way bill accompanied the consignment and remained uncancelled, demonstrating genuineness of transport documents and negating any demonstrable intent to evade tax. The absence of the shipping address as an additional place of business and omission of a consignor's official signature on the delivery challan did not, without more, establish culpable noncompliance justifying seizure. The court found that, given the valid e-way bill and accompanying documentation, departmental action amounted to unnecessary litigation and breached statutory safeguards; prior analogous authority supported quashing of such proceedings. The impugned orders were quashed and the petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.