https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307257 Where the invoice and e-Way Bill identified the consignor as the petitioner, a registered dealer, the penalty mechanism under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act could not be used on the premise that the driver was the owner. The proper course was to proceed against the person claiming ownership under Section 129(1)(a) with notice and an opportunity of hearing, since the transport documents and surrounding facts were not disputed. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. 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 Where the invoice and e-Way Bill identified the consignor as the petitioner, a registered dealer, the penalty mechanism under Section 129(1)(b) of the U.P. GST Act could not be used on the premise that the driver was the owner. The proper course was to proceed against the person claiming ownership under Section 129(1)(a) with notice and an opportunity of hearing, since the transport documents and surrounding facts were not disputed. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. Case-Laws GST Tue, 17 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307257