https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290968 The appellant's conveyance was intercepted by CGST officers due to lack of proper documentation, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the timing of interception and e-way bill generation, the absence of valid documentation justified the penalty. The appeal, filed one day late due to pre-scheduled hearings, was allowed after condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the Act, ensuring procedural fairness. The adjudicating authority upheld the penalty due to the intercepted vehicle lacking essential documents, ultimately rejecting the appellant's appeal. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Mar 2025 10:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290968 The appellant's conveyance was intercepted by CGST officers due to lack of proper documentation, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017. Despite the appellant's argument regarding the timing of interception and e-way bill generation, the absence of valid documentation justified the penalty. The appeal, filed one day late due to pre-scheduled hearings, was allowed after condonation of delay under Section 107(4) of the Act, ensuring procedural fairness. The adjudicating authority upheld the penalty due to the intercepted vehicle lacking essential documents, ultimately rejecting the appellant's appeal. Case-Laws GST Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290968