TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty order could be sustained under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 when the goods were accompanied by invoice and e-Way Bill showing the petitioner as consignor and a registered dealer, and whether the matter ought to have been proceeded under Section 129(1)(a) with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Analysis: The goods were accompanied by invoice and e-Way Bill, and the petitioner's name appeared as consignor. The petitioner was also shown to be a registered dealer in the State, and the surrounding facts had not been disputed. In that situation, the proceedings ought to have been initiated against the person claiming to be the owner of the goods, with notice and opportunity to respond. Where the consignor is identifiable from the transport documents and asserts ownership, the penal route under Section 129(1)(b) could not be invoked on the premise that the driver was the owner.
Conclusion: The penalty order under Section 129(1)(b) was not sustainable and was set aside. Fresh proceedings could be taken in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: When transport documents identify the consignor as the owner or claimed owner of the goods, penalty proceedings for detention of goods must follow the notice-and-hearing mechanism applicable to the owner and cannot be imposed under the provision meant for cases where the owner does not come forward.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
