Composite GST notices, mandatory limitation, and same-subject bar: HC upheld valid notices but quashed overlapping proceedings and unauthorised withho...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3221 to 3240 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Penalty under section 112(b) requires proof that a person acquired possession of or dealt with goods liable to confiscation, together with knowledge or belief that the goods were so liable. The Tribunal held that this standard was not met where the appellants consistently maintained they had only supplied fabricated material and scrap to an SEZ unit, had no purchase transactions with it, and were manufacturers rather than traders. It also held that statements recorded under section 108 could not be relied on because the procedure under section 138B had not been followed. The penalties were therefore set aside.
Penalty under section 112(b) requires proof that a person acquired possession of or dealt with goods liable to confiscation, together with knowledge or belief that the goods were so liable. The Tribunal held that this standard was not met where the appellants consistently maintained they had only supplied fabricated material and scrap to an SEZ unit, had no purchase transactions with it, and were manufacturers rather than traders. It also held that statements recorded under section 108 could not be relied on because the procedure under section 138B had not been followed. The penalties were therefore set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
