1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Petition challenging proceedings under Section 129(3) GST Act dismissed; seizure and penalty orders upheld as e-way bill generated post-movement</h1> HC dismissed the petition challenging proceedings under section 129(3) of the GST Act, upholding seizure and penalty orders. The court found the e-way ... Initiation of proceedings u/s 129(3) of the GST Act - at the time of interception, no e-way bill was produced, but it was produced subsequently - intent to evade payment of tax or not - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that at the time of interception of the goods, e-way bill was not produced and the same was produced before passing of the seizure order and the penalty order, but it is admitted that the e-way bill was not generated immediately after the movement of the goods and the same was generated at 1.19 p.m., much after the interception of the goods, which is evident from the MOV 06 and therefore, the issue in hand is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Aysha Builders & Suppliers [2025 (1) TMI 1597 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the impugned orders - Petition dismissed. Petitioner, a GST-registered dealer, challenged seizure and proceedings under section 129(3) of the GST Act after goods intercepted on 10.01.2020 at 07:53:57 Hrs. No e-way bill was produced at interception; an e-way bill was subsequently produced but was generated only at 01:19 p.m. on 10.01.2020-after interception-which is reflected in MOV 06. Petitioner argued absence of intent to evade tax and relied on Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent relied on a Division Bench decision in M/s Aysha Builders & Suppliers. Court held the factual matrix squarely falls within M/s Aysha Builders & Suppliers: since the e-way bill was not generated contemporaneously with movement and was created after interception, relief cannot be granted. The court concluded that, on these facts, 'no interference is called for in the impugned orders,' and the writ petitions were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
