TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 proceedings for detention and penalty under section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 were sustainable when no intention to evade tax was recorded and no sample or expert report was obtained regarding the nature of the goods.
Analysis: The goods were intercepted in transit on the allegation that the contents did not match the accompanying documents. The record showed, however, that no sample was drawn and no expert opinion or test report was obtained before treating the declared goods as different goods. In addition, no finding was recorded that the petitioner intended to evade payment of tax, though such intention is a mandatory requirement for invoking proceedings under section 129(3). In the absence of both a recorded intention to evade tax and reliable material to sustain the contrary classification of goods, the detention and consequential demand could not stand.
Conclusion: The proceedings under section 129(3) were unsustainable and were rightly set aside in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The detention, penalty, and appellate orders were quashed because the statutory precondition of intention to evade tax was not established and the alleged mismatch in goods was not supported by any sample-based or expert verification.
Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for detention and penalty under section 129(3) cannot be sustained unless the authority records a finding of intention to evade tax and bases any allegation of misdescription of goods on reliable evidentiary verification.
TaxTMI 
