Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
12 rulings found
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 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
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 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 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 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
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
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