The petitioner challenged the seizure order and show cause ...

Seizure order & penalty quashed due to lack of intent for tax evasion; Refund ordered within 8 weeks.

Case Laws GST

August 16, 2024

The petitioner challenged the seizure order and show cause notice (SCN) on grounds that the address provided in the invoice was not the registered place of business at the time of detention. The court examined whether there existed mens rea (guilty mind) for tax evasion. It held that the revenue failed to establish mens rea, rendering the detention process, SCN, and penalty imposition without legal basis. Consequently, the seizure, SCN, and penalty were quashed. The revenue was directed to refund the penalty paid under protest by the petitioner within eight weeks. The petition was disposed of.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The petitioner challenged the seizure order and show cause ...

Seizure order & penalty quashed due to lack of intent for tax evasion; Refund ordered within 8 weeks.

Case Laws GST

August 16, 2024

You may also like:

The case involved a challenge to a penalty imposed u/s 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Acts. The court held that without proof of intent to evade tax, such penalties...

Jurisdiction challenge to assessment orders passed by different officer from investigating officer. Petitioner negligent in non-participation in proceedings emanating...

Refund claim - Period of limitation - Double Taxation - The respondent had also paid tax on the same invoices. - The petitioner sought direction for the refund of Input...

Levy of penalty u/s 129(3) - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - Referencing the judgment in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case, the Court observed that the...

Refund of Input Tax Credit - tax on the export of eggs - nil rated commodity - petitioner had instead of opting for exports without payment of tax, had opted for the...

The High Court considered a case regarding refund of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner's refund application was rejected due to lack of supporting documents. The...

The Madras High Court reviewed a challenge to an adjudication order issued u/s 73 of the TN-GST Act. The court found that despite the petitioner submitting a detailed...

Penalty order - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - intent to evade tax - The High court, referencing a previous judgment, ruled that such technical errors, in...

Refund claim of service tax paid on cancelled transactions - Post GST era - Rejection of refund under Rule 6(3) of Service Tax Rules read with Sec 142(5) of CGST Act -...

Refund of service tax paid - Period of limitation - As the refund claim has been filed within one year from the date of the adjudication order wherein it has been held...

The High Court addressed a refund claim regarding provisional release of seized betelnuts u/s 110A of the Customs Act 1962. The Court previously directed the respondent...

Breach of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction - Excessive tax demand as a condition for remand - time lag of about two months between the show cause...

Appeal rejected on limitation grounds but petitioners' explanation ignored; appellate authority directed to note explanation per HC precedent, condone delay, hear appeal...

Withholding of refund u/s 241A - It is settled law that the refund due to the Petitioner is liable to be released at the time of issuance of the intimation/order under...

The High Court partly allowed the challenge to the assessment order passed by the second respondent for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The Court quashed the impugned...

Quick Updates: