Allahabad High Court
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.
7 rulings found
Allahabad High Court
Where goods in transit were detained solely for expiry of e-way bill validity due to mechanical breakdown, driver change and transporter lapse during lockdown, with no discrepancy in invoice, builty or tax and absence of intent to evade, such mere expiry did not justify levy of tax or penalty and impugned orders were quashed with refund per law
Calcutta High Court
Where goods in transit were penalized at 200 percent of tax solely due to non- extension of e-waybill at time of police interception and materials showed no other lapse, such penalty violated principles of natural justice and authorities were directed to refund recovered penalty as only failure was non-extension of e-waybill validity during transit
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where goods and conveyance were detained under Section 129 and notice was served beyond mandated seven-day period from date of detention, such delay violated strict statutory requirement, vitiating entire penalty proceedings and resulting in setting aside of all consequent orders, even if delay was of only one day, as timely issuance protected primary rights against prolonged detention
Calcutta High Court
Where ownership of seized perishable goods was not established, claimant could not seek release as owner but may seek release under alternate statutory mechanism; compelling claimant to participate in auction was unsustainable
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where goods in transit were intercepted and a show cause notice under section 129(3) was served, but penalty order was passed after the mandatory seven- day period, strict compliance with statutory timelines was required and delay beyond the permitted period rendered the penalty order invalid and liable to be quashed
Uttarakhand High Court
Where vehicle carrying aluminium roofing sheets was intercepted and discrepancy of truncated e-way bill numbers in invoices was explained as clerical error, with goods found matching declared documents and no evasion or undue benefit shown, penalty order under Section 129 could not be sustained and refund directed after applicable deduction as per circular dated 14 September 2018
Karnataka High Court
Where goods and conveyance were detained due to quantity mismatch and penalty was paid as per appellate order while suo motu revision was pending, release was required on protective basis on deposit of appropriate securities