Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
