Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
29 rulings found
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
Supreme Court
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
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
Gujarat High Court
Where State GST officer intercepted consignment in transit, found no quantity discrepancy but initiated penalty proceedings alleging reuse of documents, State GST officers were competent to act as proper officers under IGST Act where State Commissioner’s order designated them under State GST law; no separate Central notification was required. GST: Orders passed by State GST proper officers while exercising IGST powers were appealable before the State appellate authority by virtue of cross-empowerment; as an efficacious statutory remedy existed against confiscation and penalty orders, invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting appeal was impermissible
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