https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386549 Goods being transported back after repairs did not prima facie appear to constitute a taxable supply, so confiscation under the GST law was not justified at the interim stage. The Court treated the prompt generation of the e-way bill after interception as supporting the explanation that the movement was not a case for confiscation. On those facts, the matter was regarded as attracting, at most, the limited penalty regime for transport without prescribed documents, and the vehicle with goods was ordered to be released on deposit, leaving the substantive issue open. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Mar 2025 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386549 Goods being transported back after repairs did not prima facie appear to constitute a taxable supply, so confiscation under the GST law was not justified at the interim stage. The Court treated the prompt generation of the e-way bill after interception as supporting the explanation that the movement was not a case for confiscation. On those facts, the matter was regarded as attracting, at most, the limited penalty regime for transport without prescribed documents, and the vehicle with goods was ordered to be released on deposit, leaving the substantive issue open. Case-Laws GST Fri, 27 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386549