https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425810 Inter-State movement of goods from Telangana to Uttar Pradesh under IGST could not sustain a demand and penalty under the U.P. GST regime merely because a State e-way bill was not carried. The goods were invoiced as an inter-State supply and IGST had already been charged and paid; detention was founded only on the alleged absence of a State e-way bill. The Court noted the GST framework was in an initial phase and that strict enforcement of the e-way bill requirement had been recommended for postponement till 31 March 2018. On those facts, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable, with refund of the deposited amount and release of the bank guarantee. en-us Wed, 27 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2025 10:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425810 Inter-State movement of goods from Telangana to Uttar Pradesh under IGST could not sustain a demand and penalty under the U.P. GST regime merely because a State e-way bill was not carried. The goods were invoiced as an inter-State supply and IGST had already been charged and paid; detention was founded only on the alleged absence of a State e-way bill. The Court noted the GST framework was in an initial phase and that strict enforcement of the e-way bill requirement had been recommended for postponement till 31 March 2018. On those facts, the demand and penalty were held unsustainable, with refund of the deposited amount and release of the bank guarantee. Case-Laws GST Wed, 27 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425810