TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the penalty imposed in respect of detained goods was liable to be computed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 instead of Section 129(1)(b) of that Act, and whether the impugned order was liable to be set aside with consequential directions for fresh determination and release of goods.
Analysis: The goods were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice disclosing the particulars of the owner, who was a registered dealer. On those facts, the alleged infraction, if any, would attract the penal consequence contemplated by Section 129(1)(a), not the higher measure applied under Section 129(1)(b). The impugned penalty order was therefore found to have been computed on an erroneous statutory basis. The Court also directed fresh determination of the penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) and permitted release of the goods upon deposit of the penalty so computed.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for re-determination of the penalty under Section 129(1)(a), with release of the goods upon deposit of the amount so assessed.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent of correction of the penalty basis and consequential relief, while leaving open the parties' statutory remedies on any surviving dispute.
TaxTMI 
