https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761386 An additional penalty demand for 5% of the prevailing plot cost was unsustainable where the allottee had already paid the earlier penalty and the evidence showed production had commenced within the stipulated period. The court treated the first sale invoice as non-determinative because invoicing came after goods had already been produced, packed and despatched. It also noted substantial plot utilisation, which supported compliance with the allotment condition. On that basis, the further demand was quashed and the project implementation was to be treated as recognised. en-us Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Nov 2024 08:46:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761386 An additional penalty demand for 5% of the prevailing plot cost was unsustainable where the allottee had already paid the earlier penalty and the evidence showed production had commenced within the stipulated period. The court treated the first sale invoice as non-determinative because invoicing came after goods had already been produced, packed and despatched. It also noted substantial plot utilisation, which supported compliance with the allotment condition. On that basis, the further demand was quashed and the project implementation was to be treated as recognised. Case-Laws GST Tue, 29 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761386