https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420575 Penalty under s.129(3) CGST Act was challenged on the ground that the e-way bill wrongly declared the consignee as an additional place of business, allegedly indicating intent to evade tax. The HC held that detention was initially justified due to incorrect e-way bill particulars, but the consignor and consignee were the same taxable person (head office to branch), and the omission to update GST registration for a new place of business was a technical breach later cured by amendment of registration. As absence of mens rea to evade tax was evident, the penalty order was quashed and release of the vehicle and consignment was directed. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420575 Penalty under s.129(3) CGST Act was challenged on the ground that the e-way bill wrongly declared the consignee as an additional place of business, allegedly indicating intent to evade tax. The HC held that detention was initially justified due to incorrect e-way bill particulars, but the consignor and consignee were the same taxable person (head office to branch), and the omission to update GST registration for a new place of business was a technical breach later cured by amendment of registration. As absence of mens rea to evade tax was evident, the penalty order was quashed and release of the vehicle and consignment was directed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 30 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420575