https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441018 Levy of penalty was challenged on the basis that petitioner was treated not to be owner of seized goods and penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was imposed despite accompanying e-way bills. The reasoning accepted that intention to evade tax is a pre-requisite for a penalty under Section 129 and that documents of title (e-way bills) indicated ownership, rendering the revenue conclusion of non-ownership erroneous; therefore penalty proceedings should have been under Section 129(1)(a) permitting release on deposit. Consequent order set aside and respondent directed to pass fresh order applying Section 129(1)(a) benefit to the petitioner. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jan 2026 15:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441018 Levy of penalty was challenged on the basis that petitioner was treated not to be owner of seized goods and penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was imposed despite accompanying e-way bills. The reasoning accepted that intention to evade tax is a pre-requisite for a penalty under Section 129 and that documents of title (e-way bills) indicated ownership, rendering the revenue conclusion of non-ownership erroneous; therefore penalty proceedings should have been under Section 129(1)(a) permitting release on deposit. Consequent order set aside and respondent directed to pass fresh order applying Section 129(1)(a) benefit to the petitioner. Case-Laws GST Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441018