Capital Asset Conversion Requires Proven Business Stock Treatment; Paper Consideration in Spousal Flat Transfers Does Not Create Taxable Business Inco...
Human-probability test defeats political donation deduction where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering and evidence shows non-genuin...
Commercial property status protects capital-gains exemption when residential-house ownership limits are tested, while agricultural-land character gove...
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 4886 
