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...
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Liability of a private company director under Section 89 of the GST enactments places the burden of proof on the director to demonstrate that non-recovery of tax is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty; the High Court quashed the impugned recovery notice and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication on merits, permitting the director to file a proper reply and discharge the statutory burden within two weeks. Failure to comply permits respondents to proceed to recover tax as if the writ were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4807 
Join Channel 
