GSTAT Bengaluru
For assessee
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
17 rulings found
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where consignor's goods were detained solely for e-way bill expiry due to a software error misreading destination, though all documents including correct invoices and lorry receipt were available, tax was charged and physical verification revealed no discrepancies or intent to evade, invoking detention and penalty under section 129 for this procedural lapse was invalid and demands were unsustainable
Allahabad High Court
Where goods in transit were detained solely for expiry of e-way bill validity due to mechanical breakdown, driver change and transporter lapse during lockdown, with no discrepancy in invoice, builty or tax and absence of intent to evade, such mere expiry did not justify levy of tax or penalty and impugned orders were quashed with refund per law
GSTAT Agra
Where survey at brick kilns revealed excess or unaccounted bricks and coal not recorded in books and persons present failed to produce documents, initiation of confiscation proceedings with penalty and fine under section 130 was impermissible, as proper procedure required tax determination as if supplied under section 35(6) read with sections 73 and 74, rendering confiscation unsustainable GST: Where excess or unaccounted stock found at respondents' brick kilns led to confiscation and penalty orders, and Commissioner (Appeals) quashed both confiscation and penalty due to lack of legal basis, revenue's appeals confined only to fine could not be sustained in absence of a surviving confiscation, rendering such appeals meritless and not maintainable
GSTAT Ernakulam
Where notice under section 129(3) was issued on 28-6-2019 but penalty order was passed only on 26-7-2019 after expiry of prescribed seven-day period, said time- limit was held mandatory and breach thereof vitiated entire proceedings, rendering adjudication void ab initio, thus, penalty order and appellate order were to be set aside with consequential relief
GSTAT Ernakulam
Where appellant's goods and conveyance were detained for expired e-way bills and notice proposing penalty was issued but final order confirming demand was passed 445 days later, contravening statutory seven-day period, such a delay rendered penalty order void ab initio and a nullity in law, requiring consequential relief to appellant
GSTAT Bengaluru
Where an assessee made pre-SCN payment of tax and interest for excess ITC and irregular TRAN-1 credit found in audit and there was no evidence of fraud, willful misstatement or suppression with intent, penalty under fraud provisions was not sustainable as mere audit detection does not amount to suppression, and voluntary payment warranted immunity from penalty under general provisions
Calcutta High Court
Where goods in transit were penalized at 200 percent of tax solely due to non- extension of e-waybill at time of police interception and materials showed no other lapse, such penalty violated principles of natural justice and authorities were directed to refund recovered penalty as only failure was non-extension of e-waybill validity during transit
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where goods and conveyance were detained under Section 129 and notice was served beyond mandated seven-day period from date of detention, such delay violated strict statutory requirement, vitiating entire penalty proceedings and resulting in setting aside of all consequent orders, even if delay was of only one day, as timely issuance protected primary rights against prolonged detention
GSTAT Lucknow
Where registered dealer transporting motorcycles was intercepted for absence of e-way bill which was generated and produced nine minutes later, and goods were identifiable with genuine records without any evidence of suppression, undervaluation or intent to evade, mere procedural lapse did not justify penalty and orders for penalty and detention were unsustainable in law
GSTAT Ernakulam
Where cigarette trader's goods in transit were detained for invoice and e-way bill mismatch and notice under section 129(3) was issued but order confirming tax and penalty was not passed within mandatory seven-day period from service of notice but was passed after 230 days delay, delay would render order illegal and without jurisdiction, thus penalty was to be quashed
GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram
Where registered trader's goods were detained in transit for missing e-way bill and penalty order in Form GST MOV-09 was issued 47 days after notice, section 129(3) mandated a strict seven-day limit, making such delayed order illegal and without jurisdiction, thereby rendering penalty unsustainable and proceedings barred by limitation
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Where goods in transit were intercepted and a show cause notice under section 129(3) was served, but penalty order was passed after the mandatory seven- day period, strict compliance with statutory timelines was required and delay beyond the permitted period rendered the penalty order invalid and liable to be quashed
Calcutta High Court
Where penalty was imposed on sole proprietorship for alleged issuance of invoices without supply and availing ITC without receipt of goods, and request for cross-examination of persons whose statements formed basis of penalty was denied, such denial amounted to gross violation of principles of natural justice, warranting setting aside of impugned order and fresh adjudication with cross-examination opportunity
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Where petitioner was penalized for GST offences without issuance of prior show cause notice and was denied reasonable opportunity of being heard, non- compliance with statutory mandate of natural justice under penalty provisions vitiated penalty, rendering impugned penalty unsustainable in law
Madras High Court
Where both statutory late fee and general penalty were imposed for same delayed filing of returns, once specific late fee was prescribed and levied under law, imposition of general penalty for identical default was unwarranted and penalty orders were to be set aside while late fee remained intact
Madras High Court
Where statute prescribed late fee for delayed annual return, separate general penalty for same default was impermissible; late fee for 995-day delay was to be upheld, but penalty component was to be set aside as it would result in duplication of statutory consequence
Madras High Court
Where penalty equals to 100 percent of tax was imposed under Section 74 for alleged fraud though penalty only of 50 percent of tax under Section 74A was statutorily leviable, as provisions invoked had led to a higher penalty and materially altered liability, such error was not curable as a mere misquotation; impugned penalty order was to be quashed and fresh proceedings was to be initiated under correct provision