CENVAT credit availability after omission of Rule 12B in textiles confirmed; late addendum to SCN introducing new grounds held time-barred and invalid...
Export of Wheat Flour and related products subject to online allocation, eligibility criteria, non-transferable six-month authorisations and reporting...
Straight-line lease rental accounting change results in penalty quashed where disclosed accounts and bona fide arguable accounting interpretation exis...
After interception of goods in transit, the Court held that the authorities could not bypass the detention and seizure process under section 129 and proceed straight to confiscation under section 130 by issuing Form GST MOV-10. It applied its earlier Gujarat HC decision that sections 129 and 130 operate in distinct fields, and that confiscation under section 130 is relevant only where intention to evade tax is involved. Because proceedings had been initiated under section 129 but were then converted directly into confiscation proceedings, the notice and consequential action were unsustainable and were quashed.
After interception of goods in transit, the Court held that the authorities could not bypass the detention and seizure process under section 129 and proceed straight to confiscation under section 130 by issuing Form GST MOV-10. It applied its earlier Gujarat HC decision that sections 129 and 130 operate in distinct fields, and that confiscation under section 130 is relevant only where intention to evade tax is involved. Because proceedings had been initiated under section 129 but were then converted directly into confiscation proceedings, the notice and consequential action were unsustainable and were quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.