Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Condonation of delay permits statutory appeal restoration where inadequate service explanation prevented consideration of reassessment and taxable-inc...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
121 to 140 of 95955 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
