GSTAT Raipur
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
14 rulings found
GSTAT Raipur
Where scrutiny of e-way bills and subsequent proceedings led to disputed liability for two invoices, and Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief for one invoice (GST-1399) and sustained demand for another (GST-125), with respondent not challenging relief on GST-1399 before Tribunal, only GST-125 remained in controversy, leaving relief on GST-1399 undisturbed and outside Tribunal’s purview. GST: Where assessee, accused of duplicate e-way bill generation and non-payment, specifically requested a personal hearing and submitted defence, adjudicating authority confirmed demand without granting post-reply hearing or giving reasoned decision, such order violated statutory mandate for opportunity of hearing and duty to record reasons, hence original adjudication was vitiated for non-compliance with legal requirements. GST: Where dispute survived for single invoice with two e-way bills for same vehicle, non-cancellation was admitted and no primary records or evidence were produced to prove asserted system glitch, appellate proceedings could not cure breach of statutory personal hearing at original stage, warranting limited remand for fresh determination after affording statutory hearing and considering primary evidence. GST: Where demand was confirmed on duplicate e-way bills against same invoice with unpaid tax alleged, and cancellation of the second e-way bill was raised in appeal, reference by appellate authority to statutory cancellation mechanism did not introduce a new ground, since existence and non-use of cancellation window was relevant to assess appellant's defence of unintentional duplication.…
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where consignor's goods were detained solely for e-way bill expiry due to a software error misreading destination, though all documents including correct invoices and lorry receipt were available, tax was charged and physical verification revealed no discrepancies or intent to evade, invoking detention and penalty under section 129 for this procedural lapse was invalid and demands were unsustainable
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 Bengaluru
Where goods were intercepted while being unloaded at third-party premises without valid invoice or e-way bill covering such movement and fresh e-way bill was generated only post-interception without evidence of technical glitch, conduct indicated intent to evade tax and absence of mandatory documents during transit amounted to wilful contravention, justifying imposition of penalty under detention provisions
GSTAT Lucknow
Where goods in transit were detained on suspicion of reuse of invoices and e- way bills based solely on vehicle movement data and photographs, but there was no discrepancy in goods or documents and no cogent evidence of document reuse or evasion, mere suspicion could not justify detention or penalty and burden of proof remained on revenue, thus tax and penalty were not sustainable
GSTAT Agra
Where vehicle number mentioned in one e-way bill did not correspond with vehicle actually carrying goods, Judicial Member sustained penalty under section 129(3) holding that complete substitution of vehicle number constituted breach and presumption of evasion was not rebutted, while Technical Member found no mens rea and held penalty unsustainable, in view of split opinions of members, matter was to be referred to Vice President GSTAT
GSTAT Lucknow
Where goods were supplied under invoice with e-way bill mentioning vehicle UP 82 T 2315 but were transported in vehicle UP 44 BT 5284 without updating Part-B, and weighbridge and RC details revealed discrepancy, absence of contemporaneous proof for breakdown and incorrect e-way bill entry showed non-compliance beyond minor lapse, reasonably indicating intent to evade and justifying detention and penalty under Section 129
GSTAT Lucknow
Where excavator was moved intra-State from project site to registered premises with only a delivery challan, same GSTIN for consignor and consignee, and no e-Way Bill, mere ownership and internal repositioning did not dispense with e- Way Bill, exemption for sub-20 kilometre movement was unproven, and imposition of penalty for missing e-Way Bill was justified
GSTAT Lucknow
Where trader in iron scrap moved goods under tax invoice but without mandatory E-Way Bill during interstate transport and was repeatedly found transporting without E-Way Bill, such substantive non-compliance indicated intent to evade tax, thus levy of tax and equal penalty under GST was warranted and restoration of penalty by reversing first appellate authority's order was justified
GSTAT Lucknow
Where goods in transit were detained for alleged reuse of e-way bill based solely on inference from double verification on same day and no discrepancy was found in goods or documents, nor evidence of actual contravention or fake repair bill was produced, presumption of evasion without proof was impermissible and penalty under detention proceedings was unjustified
GSTAT Lucknow
Where vehicle transported iron scrap without mandatory E-Way Bill and was intercepted despite being accompanied by tax invoice and documents, subsequent generation of E-Way Bill did not cure breach, non-compliance with Rule 138(1) inferred evasion intent especially given short inter-State movement, thus imposition of tax and equal penalty under Section 129(3) was rightly imposed
GSTAT Lucknow
Where registered dealer transporting motorcycles was intercepted for absence of e-way bill which was generated and produced nine minutes later, and goods were identifiable with genuine records without any evidence of suppression, undervaluation or intent to evade, mere procedural lapse did not justify penalty and orders for penalty and detention were unsustainable in law
GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram
Where appellant transported TMT bars between own premises as internal stock transfer under same GSTIN without e-way bill, in absence of consideration and supply between distinct persons, movement did not amount to supply and no tax was payable, thus, penalty linked to tax was not leviable, and absence of e-way bill merely constituted document lapse, not impeaching transaction genuineness