Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Where exported goods are zero rated and no tax is payable, a procedural contravention of Rule 138 (expiry of an E-way bill) without evidence of intent to evade tax does not support computation or imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a). Applying Coordinate Bench reasoning, the expiry caused by a vehicular breakdown shortly before interception was a transport mishap and not a tax-evasion device; therefore harsh penal consequences under Section 129(3) were unsustainable. The impugned APL 04 orders were quashed and the penal amount was directed to be refunded with interest within twelve weeks.
Where exported goods are zero rated and no tax is payable, a procedural contravention of Rule 138 (expiry of an E-way bill) without evidence of intent to evade tax does not support computation or imposition of penalty under Section 129(1)(a). Applying Coordinate Bench reasoning, the expiry caused by a vehicular breakdown shortly before interception was a transport mishap and not a tax-evasion device; therefore harsh penal consequences under Section 129(3) were unsustainable. The impugned APL 04 orders were quashed and the penal amount was directed to be refunded with interest within twelve weeks.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
