Misdeclaration of quantity rejected where supplier evidence established counting errors, so reassessment, confiscation and redemption fine were set as...
Admissibility of electronic evidence controls valuation and penalty exposure; non compliant e records and statements nullify revaluation and penalties...
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Petitioner alleges compliance with pre-deposit obligations at two appellate stages and seeks relief from recovery; court directed petitioner to make representation to GST authorities proving payment and allowed authorities to verify and call for clarifications. Any sum recovered in excess of the cumulative deposits required at the two appellate stages must be refunded. Court did not determine merits and left substantive decision to the GST authorities, who may examine evidence and take an informed decision on refund and stay-related consequences.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
