Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Whether mere deviation of route during transit, when the consignment was accompanied by valid tax invoice and no discrepancy in goods or documents was found, could justify detention and penalty under s.129 CGST/KGST was answered in the negative. The authority relied only on a cyclostyled driver statement and produced no material to prove deliberate diversion or intent to evade tax, while the taxpayer offered a prompt, plausible explanation of inadvertent route-miss. Since s.129 is invocable only upon deliberate tax evasion and not for technical or minor lapses, the orders imposing s.129 penalty were held illegal and were set aside, with liberty to proceed, if at all, only under s.125. - HC
Whether mere deviation of route during transit, when the consignment was accompanied by valid tax invoice and no discrepancy in goods or documents was found, could justify detention and penalty under s.129 CGST/KGST was answered in the negative. The authority relied only on a cyclostyled driver statement and produced no material to prove deliberate diversion or intent to evade tax, while the taxpayer offered a prompt, plausible explanation of inadvertent route-miss. Since s.129 is invocable only upon deliberate tax evasion and not for technical or minor lapses, the orders imposing s.129 penalty were held illegal and were set aside, with liberty to proceed, if at all, only under s.125. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
