GST penalty classification turns on invoice disclosure and e-way bill absence; Section 129(1)(a) applies, not 129(1)(b).

Goods accompanied by a tax invoice disclosing the registered dealer, and the only alleged infraction was absence of an e-way bill, attracted penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The penalty could not be computed under Section 129(1)(b) on those admitted facts, so the impugned order was held unsustainable. The order was set aside and the authorities were directed to determine the penalty under Section 129(1)(a); release of the goods was made subject to deposit of the penalty quantified under that provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned penalty order could sustain when the goods were accompanied by a tax invoice disclosing the registered dealer, and whether the penalty was required to be computed under Section 129(1)(a) rather than Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The goods were found accompanied by a tax invoice containing the particulars of the owner of the goods, who was a registered dealer. On the admitted facts, the only alleged infraction was non-accompaniment of the e-way bill. In such a situation, the proper statutory consequence was assessment of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The impugned order, having computed the penalty under Section 129(1)(b), was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the authorities were directed to determine the penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Release of the goods was made available on deposit of the penalty quantified under that provision.

---