Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC examined seizure of goods and penalty imposed u/s 129 CGST Act on the ground that the tax invoice mentioned an incorrect PIN code for the "ship to" address in a bill-to-ship-to transaction from Gujarat to West Bengal. The HC noted that the consignee's address was otherwise correct, all prescribed documents accompanied the consignment, and no other discrepancy or irregularity was found by the authorities. Relying on the applicable circular clarifying that proceedings u/s 129 should not be initiated where only the PIN code is incorrect and there is no intent to evade tax, the HC held the seizure and penalty unsustainable, set aside the impugned orders, and allowed the writ petition.
HC examined seizure of goods and penalty imposed u/s 129 CGST Act on the ground that the tax invoice mentioned an incorrect PIN code for the "ship to" address in a bill-to-ship-to transaction from Gujarat to West Bengal. The HC noted that the consignee's address was otherwise correct, all prescribed documents accompanied the consignment, and no other discrepancy or irregularity was found by the authorities. Relying on the applicable circular clarifying that proceedings u/s 129 should not be initiated where only the PIN code is incorrect and there is no intent to evade tax, the HC held the seizure and penalty unsustainable, set aside the impugned orders, and allowed the writ petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.