Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
7241 to 7260 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether the penalty quantified under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was computed erroneously was the dominant issue. Applying the principle in a prior binding decision on similar facts, the Court held that the penalty must be re-determined strictly in accordance with the statutory formula under Section 129(1)(a), and an order reflecting an incorrect computation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the tax authorities were directed to re-compute and determine the penalty afresh within three weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of. - HC
Whether the penalty quantified under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 was computed erroneously was the dominant issue. Applying the principle in a prior binding decision on similar facts, the Court held that the penalty must be re-determined strictly in accordance with the statutory formula under Section 129(1)(a), and an order reflecting an incorrect computation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned penalty order was set aside and the tax authorities were directed to re-compute and determine the penalty afresh within three weeks, and the writ petition was disposed of. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
