Human-probability test defeats political donation deductions where banking records mask accommodation-entry fund layering rather than genuine contribu...
Penalty under section 129 for alleged e-way bill reuse requires cogent, positive evidence of prior transportation or delivery of the same goods; extended document validity and the driver's statement on loading date, without independent corroboration, are insufficient. Matching quantities and descriptions in tax invoices and valid e-way bills supported the recorded movement, while omission of the dispatching premises' GSTIN did not establish unaccounted goods or a fictitious transaction. In the absence of proof of earlier delivery, unloading, return, second loading, or an intent to evade tax, the penalty could not be sustained. The order setting aside the penalty remained in force and the departmental appeal failed.
Penalty under section 129 for alleged e-way bill reuse requires cogent, positive evidence of prior transportation or delivery of the same goods; extended document validity and the driver's statement on loading date, without independent corroboration, are insufficient. Matching quantities and descriptions in tax invoices and valid e-way bills supported the recorded movement, while omission of the dispatching premises' GSTIN did not establish unaccounted goods or a fictitious transaction. In the absence of proof of earlier delivery, unloading, return, second loading, or an intent to evade tax, the penalty could not be sustained. The order setting aside the penalty remained in force and the departmental appeal failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4921 
