Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was sustainable when Part B of the e-way bill was not filled, though the goods were accompanied by invoice and other documents and there was no material indicating an intention to evade tax.
Analysis: The goods were found to be covered by the invoice, e-way bill, gate pass, bilty and other accompanying documents, and there was no dispute that the goods matched the invoice. The only defect was non-filling of Part B of the e-way bill, which was treated as a technical lapse. The department did not establish any intention to evade tax, and the issue was covered by earlier decisions holding that such a lapse, by itself, does not justify penalty under the statute.
Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the assessee succeeded on this issue.