Tag: Penalty u/s 129(3)
If address of consignor or consignee is correct, merely for wrong PIN code, the proceedings u/s 129 can not be initiated – High Court In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court quashed order under section 129(3) of GST Act holding that when goods in question was accompanied …
When goods are loaded in two trucks with one e-way bill specifically mentioning both truck numbers, no intention to evade payment of tax can be attributed. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that when goods could not be accommodated in one truck and therefore, loaded …
Mere nondisclosure of place of destination in the documents cannot be a ground for seizure u/s 129 of GST Act. In a recent judgment, Allahabad High Court has held that merely non-disclosure of place of destination in the accompanying documents cannot be a ground for seizure of goods …
Penalty confirmed as loading point of the goods loaded in vehicle was different as declared in E- Way Bill which is confirmed by driver and GPS location In a recent judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand confirmed penalty as loading point of the goods loaded in vehicle was …
When e-way bill generated prior to detention order, there could not be an intention to evade payment of tax. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has quashed penalty order under section 129(3) of the GST Act as the e-way bill was generated much prior to the …
No penalty u/s 129(3) of GST Act for non-filling of Part -B of the e-way bill due to technical glitch when there was no intention to evade payment of tax In a recent judgment, Allahabad High Court has held that penalty under section 129(3) of the GST Act …
