https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307257 The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act on the petitioner, who was the consignor named in the invoice and e-Way Bill and a registered dealer. The court held that since the petitioner was the owner of the goods and properly documented, penalty proceedings should have been directed against the firm owner rather than the driver. The penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was therefore improperly levied. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was granted liberty to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307257 The HC set aside the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the UPGST Act on the petitioner, who was the consignor named in the invoice and e-Way Bill and a registered dealer. The court held that since the petitioner was the owner of the goods and properly documented, penalty proceedings should have been directed against the firm owner rather than the driver. The penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was therefore improperly levied. The impugned order was quashed, and the respondent was granted liberty to pass a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws GST Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307257