https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442645 Penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act could not be sustained where the seizing authority failed to produce positive evidence that the e-way bill had been reused for the intercepted goods. The Court held that an order based only on assumption, bare inference, or unsupported presumption was insufficient to justify the levy of tax and penalty. As no cogent material on record established the alleged misuse of the e-way bill, the tax and penalty orders were set aside and relief was granted to the assessee. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Apr 2025 13:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442645 Penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act could not be sustained where the seizing authority failed to produce positive evidence that the e-way bill had been reused for the intercepted goods. The Court held that an order based only on assumption, bare inference, or unsupported presumption was insufficient to justify the levy of tax and penalty. As no cogent material on record established the alleged misuse of the e-way bill, the tax and penalty orders were set aside and relief was granted to the assessee. Case-Laws GST Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442645