TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty for missing e-way bill must follow Section 129(1)(a) U.P. GST Act, not 129(1)(b), rules</h1> <h3>M/s Siddhi Vinayak Footwear Versus State of Uttar Pradesh And Another</h3> HC held that for goods transported without an accompanying e-way bill, penalty could be imposed only under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. ... Levy of penalty u/s 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - e-way bill not accompanying the goods - HELD THAT:- Whatever infringement may have been alleged for reason of e-way bill not accompanying the goods, it may have resulted in penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, only. However, the Adjudicating Authority has erroneously computed the penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act. On that issue, reliance has been placed on Halder Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. [2023 (12) TMI 514 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that 'the order passed by the authorities dated October 19, 2023 is quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to carry out the exercise in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act within a period of three weeks from today.' For reason of similar facts and there have been no other dispute, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this state, let the writ petition be decided with the consent of the parties at the fresh stage - the impugned order dated 25.10.2025 is set aside with the direction upon the authorities to determine the quantum of penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the Act within a period of three weeks from today. Petition disposed off. Petition challenges order dated 25.10.2025 imposing penalty for movement of goods without e-way bill. Goods were accompanied by a tax invoice 'clearly disclosing full particulars of the owner of the goods, a registered dealer.' The court found that alleged infringement for absence of e-way bill 'may have resulted in penalty in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017,' but the Adjudicating Authority had erroneously computed penalty under Section 129(1)(b). Reliance placed on Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P., where the authority's order was quashed and directed to proceed 'in terms of Section 129(1)(a) ... within a period of three weeks.' The impugned order is set aside and authorities are directed to determine the quantum of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) within three weeks. 'Subject to the petitioner depositing the penalty amount in terms of Section 129(1)(a) ... the goods may be released forthwith.' Remaining disputes to be pursued by statutory remedies.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
