https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765081 The court found that the invocation of Section 129(1) of the G.S.T. Act, 2017, was unjustified in this case, as there was no clear evidence of intent to evade tax. The appellants provided a credible explanation for the omission of supplier details in the e-way bill, consistent with trade practices. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty imposed by the original and appellate authorities, allowing the appellants to apply for a refund of the penalty paid. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:41:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765081 The court found that the invocation of Section 129(1) of the G.S.T. Act, 2017, was unjustified in this case, as there was no clear evidence of intent to evade tax. The appellants provided a credible explanation for the omission of supplier details in the e-way bill, consistent with trade practices. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty imposed by the original and appellate authorities, allowing the appellants to apply for a refund of the penalty paid. Case-Laws GST Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765081