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.
19 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 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 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
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
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 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 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
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
GSTAT Lucknow
Where registered manufacturer transported goods under valid invoice, e- invoice and e-way bill and departmental presumption of re-transportation on already used documents was based on inference without proof or discrepancy in goods or documents, burden to prove reuse lay on department which failed to establish any contravention, thus inference of evasion intent was unsustainable and detention with penalty unjustified
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 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 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
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
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