Customs Broker licensing proceedings fail when their offence-report foundation collapses and authorisation, advisory, and KYC duties remain unbreached...
Tariff classification of Digital Axle Counters affirmed as electro-mechanical railway signalling equipment, eliminating duty, confiscation and penalty...
HC held that, in a case of goods transported without an accompanying e-way bill, only penalty under s.129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was legally permissible. The Adjudicating Authority had erroneously imposed penalty under s.129(1)(b). Relying on its earlier precedent in a similar matter, HC found no other factual dispute warranting further pleadings and, with consent of parties, decided the writ at admission stage. The impugned order dated 25.10.2025 was quashed and set aside. Revenue authorities were directed to recompute and impose penalty strictly in accordance with s.129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition filed by M/s X against State authorities was accordingly disposed of.
HC held that, in a case of goods transported without an accompanying e-way bill, only penalty under s.129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was legally permissible. The Adjudicating Authority had erroneously imposed penalty under s.129(1)(b). Relying on its earlier precedent in a similar matter, HC found no other factual dispute warranting further pleadings and, with consent of parties, decided the writ at admission stage. The impugned order dated 25.10.2025 was quashed and set aside. Revenue authorities were directed to recompute and impose penalty strictly in accordance with s.129(1)(a) within three weeks. The writ petition filed by M/s X against State authorities was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4884 
