The Court set aside the penalty imposed for expired e-way bill, holding that proceedings under Section 129 require proof of intent to evade tax, which was absent.
The Court ruled that municipal bodies cannot levy advertisement tax after the GST regime and quashed the recovery demand. It also ordered refund of tax collected post-GST, subject to unjust enrichment.
The Court set aside the GST demand after finding that the final order sought an amount higher than what was specified in the show-cause notice. The case was remanded for fresh proceedings with an opportunity to respond.
The Court held that the penalty could not stand because the goods were accompanied by genuine documents and the e-way bill failure was due to a technical glitch. It ruled that no intention to evade tax existed and quashed the proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court held that Section 29 reassessment applies only where turnover has escaped assessment. ITC claims already accepted in original assessments cannot trigger reassessment. Orders attempting to reverse ITC alone were declared without jurisdiction and invalid.
The Court held that with investigation complete and evidence being documentary, continued custody was unnecessary. Bail was granted as the offences were triable by a Magistrate and carried a maximum sentence of five years.
The Court held that penalty under Section 48(5) cannot be imposed based solely on suspicion without proof that the transaction was omitted from books. The order was set aside due to lack of evidence of intent to evade tax.
The High Court examined a claim that cash recovered during raids originated from a 2008 family settlement. The authorities challenged this, citing suspicion of illegal gratification and procedural gaps.
The Court held that an expired e-way bill alone does not prove tax evasion, especially when delay was caused by the driver’s illness. The penalty orders were set aside.
The High Court noted that the inquiry was conducted hastily with limited time for reply and directed the disciplinary authority to reconsider all issues lawfully. The key takeaway is that disciplinary action must follow fair procedure.
