Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
State GST officers in West Bengal were competent to intercept and detain goods in transit under the IGST Act, because section 4 operates as a deeming provision and no contrary notification was shown. The claim that West Bengal was only a transport corridor failed, as interception occurred within the State and the accompanying documents did not conclusively establish lawful transit. The Court also held that declaring a registered dealer as an unregistered person in the e-way bill, together with a delivery challan signed by an unauthorised person and not meeting Rules 55 and 138, amounted to actionable contraventions. Detention and penalty under section 129 were therefore sustained.
State GST officers in West Bengal were competent to intercept and detain goods in transit under the IGST Act, because section 4 operates as a deeming provision and no contrary notification was shown. The claim that West Bengal was only a transport corridor failed, as interception occurred within the State and the accompanying documents did not conclusively establish lawful transit. The Court also held that declaring a registered dealer as an unregistered person in the e-way bill, together with a delivery challan signed by an unauthorised person and not meeting Rules 55 and 138, amounted to actionable contraventions. Detention and penalty under section 129 were therefore sustained.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
