Stay updated
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s T.K. Printers held that tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act cannot be imposed in absence of intent to evade tax, where e-way bill was generated before passing of the detention order and the goods were part of a stock transfer which were clearly not meant for sale.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/s. Lalitpur Power Generation Company Ltd. dismissed the writ petition and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 129 of the UPGST Act for want of valid e-way bill. The implementation of the 14th Amendment to tthe UPGST Rules, w.e.f. April 01, 2018, carrying a valid e-way bill during goods transit is mandatory.
Once revenue taken particular stand same cannot be completely changed by different reason or ground and therefore demand order was quashed as initially authorities physically verified goods and accompanying documents without noting any discrepancies but later served demand stating goods being different as mentioned in documents without valid reasons.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in M/s Chetna Steel Tubes (P.) Ltd. dismissed the writ petitions challenging a circular that directed tax liability creation under Section 129 of the CGST Act and held that tax collected at the detention stage can be claimed as a refund if excess tax is paid in regular returns.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of Exide Industries Limited allowed the writ petition and held that goods are not liable for seizure and further penalty cannot be imposed when designated route not taken during transportation as the documents accompanying the goods were found to be genuine.
The Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of M/s Kedia Enterprises ruled that an Order of detention in FORM GST MOV- 06 and the Notice in FORM GST MOV-07 must be in accordance with Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri) in M/s Maa Amba Builders set aside the order of detention and held that there was no material record available, therefore, no presumption can be drawn that there was the intention of the tax evasion. Taking into the consideration, within 24 hrs from the expiry of the validity of the e-way bill, there was material to show that was involved in the tax evasion.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. Jindal Pipes Limited held that, penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act is not imposable when discrepancy relates to stating of different location addresses of same recipient, thereby stating that the philosophy under the respective GST enactments is not to levy unjust tax and burden on assessee, who is otherwise regular in paying tax and complies with the law.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Nancy Trading Company quashed the detention and penalty order under Section 129 of the CGST Act on the ground that missing of e-tax invoice was considered as bonafide human error and there was no intent to evade tax, and all other required documents were in order.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Raghuveer Ispat Private Limited allowed the writ petition and set aside the order imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act on the ground that e-way bill expired during the course of transportation of goods.
