Governmental authority status supports construction-service exemption, while pre-cutoff contract and stamp-duty compliance requires verification on re...
Automated Free Sale and Commerce Certificates enable paperless processing while retaining risk-based manual verification for selected exporter applica...
Employee stock-shortage penalties do not constitute consideration for services, preventing GST collection under Schedule II in employment relationship...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
