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...
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Section 122(1) of the GST enactments was held to prescribe a mandatory penalty once the provision is attracted, because the phrase "whichever is higher" leaves no discretion to impose a lesser amount on proportionality grounds. The High Court rejected reliance on proportionality decisions from labour and excise jurisprudence, and noted that the petitioners were prima facie liable on the material in the assessment orders. It also found no procedural irregularity or lack of reasons in the impugned orders, and held that the statutory appellate remedy must be pursued instead of writ relief. The writ petitions were dismissed, but the petitioners were allowed to file appeals with the 10% pre-deposit requirement dispensed with.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
