Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

E way Bill non generation

VIGNESH

Sir. Kindly clarrify,Goods were moved by vehicle driver with Delivery Challan and he moved to weigh bridge and failed to collect E way bill at 4.50 pm and Eway bill was raised by the company by 5.01 pm. Meanwhile vehicle was intercepted by rovig squad and penalty was levied. kindly clarrify any probability of appeal and getting back penalty paid as refund

Company Penalized for Missing E-Way Bill; Appeal for Refund Discussed, Rule 138(D) Not Applicable A company faced a penalty after a vehicle carrying goods was intercepted without an e-way bill, which was generated shortly after the interception. The discussion involves clarifying whether an appeal could be made for a refund of the penalty. It is noted that no e-way bill is required for goods moved within 20 km for weighment, provided a delivery challan is issued. The issue arises because the delivery challan mentioned a consignee instead of weighbridge movement. Legal references and potential defenses, including human error and court precedents, are discussed, but Rule 138(D) is deemed irrelevant to this case. (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues