Transit detention of goods with invoice and e-way bill: stricter penalty under the owner-not-identified provision was not justified.

Goods detained in transit were accompanied by a tax invoice and e-way bill, and those documents were found on the vehicle at first interception. As the revenue did not dispute the genuineness of those documents and the owner came forward claiming the goods, the matter fell within the provision applicable where the owner is identified. The stricter penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act, 2012 was therefore not justified, and treatment under Section 129(1)(a) was held to be the correct course.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts of the detention of goods in transit supported by tax invoice and e-way bill, penalty could be levied under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act, 2012, or whether the case fell within Section 129(1)(a) of that Act.

Analysis: The goods were accompanied by a tax invoice and e-way bill, and those documents were found on the vehicle at the time of first interception. The revenue did not dispute at the hearing that it had not formed any opinion to falsify the genuineness of those documents. The petitioner also claimed ownership of the goods. In such circumstances, the matter was governed by the provision applicable where the owner comes forward, and the stronger penal consequence under Section 129(1)(b) was not justified.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 129(1)(b) could not be sustained and the petitioner was entitled to treatment under Section 129(1)(a).

---