https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433763 Penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act could not be sustained where the authorities relied only on a presumption that the same goods were transported twice through different vehicles. The detained vehicle carried the e-way bill and other required documents, and the record did not show any material proving that the goods had again been brought into Uttar Pradesh from Nagpur in a second movement. As the detention and penalty proceedings were unsupported by evidence, the penalty order was unsustainable. The appellate order was also set aside. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433763 Penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act could not be sustained where the authorities relied only on a presumption that the same goods were transported twice through different vehicles. The detained vehicle carried the e-way bill and other required documents, and the record did not show any material proving that the goods had again been brought into Uttar Pradesh from Nagpur in a second movement. As the detention and penalty proceedings were unsupported by evidence, the penalty order was unsustainable. The appellate order was also set aside. Case-Laws GST Thu, 02 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=433763