Supreme Court of India
Gurunanak Arecanut Traders v. Commissioner, Commercial Tax, U.P
For revenue
SLP(CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 35682 OF 2026
Supreme Court of India
SLP(CIVIL) DIARY NO(S). 35682 OF 2026
SLP dismissed against impugned order of High Court that where goods of assessee were detained during transit and an order was passed under section 129, since goods of assessee were not accompanied with e-way bill and also goods declared by assessee were different from ones detained, no case was made out for interference and writ petition was to be dismissed
Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 136 of Constitution of India
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
GSTAT Agra
Where consignment of used iron was transported with valid invoice and bilty but without e-way bill on 24 November 2017, since e-way bill requirement for inter- State movement was not mandatory on that date and no evasion intent was found, detention and penalty imposed were unsustainable and revenue's appeal was to be dismissed
GSTAT Agra
Where vehicle carrying electrical equipment was intercepted with expired e-way bill, movement involved a different vehicle without Part-B updation and route deviation, and no explanation or evidence was furnished to rebut presumption of intent to evade, liability for penalty under section 129 was justified as valid Part-B is mandatory and minor error circular did not cover total vehicle substitution
GSTAT Varanasi
Where goods were transported inter-state with valid e-way bill and tax invoice, and route deviation occurred to avoid hilly terrain for vehicle safety, with no evidence of intent to deliver to unauthorized recipient or evade tax, valid documents and plausible explanation precluded penalty as route choice did not violate any legal provision or indicate mala fide intent