GSTAT Bengaluru
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.
11 rulings found
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 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 Ernakulam
Where notice under section 129(3) was issued on 28-6-2019 but penalty order was passed only on 26-7-2019 after expiry of prescribed seven-day period, said time- limit was held mandatory and breach thereof vitiated entire proceedings, rendering adjudication void ab initio, thus, penalty order and appellate order were to be set aside with consequential relief
GSTAT Ernakulam
Where appellant's goods and conveyance were detained for expired e-way bills and notice proposing penalty was issued but final order confirming demand was passed 445 days later, contravening statutory seven-day period, such a delay rendered penalty order void ab initio and a nullity in law, requiring consequential relief to appellant
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 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 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 Ernakulam
Where cigarette trader's goods in transit were detained for invoice and e-way bill mismatch and notice under section 129(3) was issued but order confirming tax and penalty was not passed within mandatory seven-day period from service of notice but was passed after 230 days delay, delay would render order illegal and without jurisdiction, thus penalty was to be quashed
GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram
Where registered trader's goods were detained in transit for missing e-way bill and penalty order in Form GST MOV-09 was issued 47 days after notice, section 129(3) mandated a strict seven-day limit, making such delayed order illegal and without jurisdiction, thereby rendering penalty unsustainable and proceedings barred by limitation