he Court held that the penalty for an unfilled Part-B of the e-way bill could not stand as the authority recorded no attempt to evade tax. The ruling reinforces that Section 129 requires a specific finding of evasion.
Court held that penalty under Section 48(5) cannot rest on presumption and requires verification of account books, which authorities failed to conduct. All orders were set aside.
Allahabad High Court rejected writ petition challenging a Rs. 17.7 crore penalty, directing broker to pursue statutory appeal under Customs Act for proper adjudication.
The High Court permitted shifting of goods from SEZ to a bonded warehouse while pending show-cause adjudication, subject to filing YBE, verification, and re-warehousing certificate within 45 days.
The Court held that interest and penalty cannot be imposed when not proposed in the show cause notice, setting aside the assessment and attachment orders.
Allahabad High Court quashes GST adjudication and appellate orders where personal hearing coincided with the notice submission date, mandating fresh hearing for procedural fairness.
High Court quashes penalty computed under Section 129(1)(b) and directs reassessment under Section 129(1)(a) where goods were accompanied by valid documentation.
High Court sets aside penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b), directing authorities to apply Section 129(1)(a) where goods were accompanied by tax invoice.
The High Court granted bail to an applicant who had absconded for 14 years, noting his clean record, prior compliance, and undertaking to cooperate in trial proceedings.
The Court held that seizure under section 129(3) was unsustainable where the goods were found to belong to the consignor. It ruled that no proceedings could continue against the transporter in the absence of adverse findings.
