https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769144 Detention and penalty under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act were upheld because the underlying invoice transaction was found to be sham. Although the goods were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice, the supplier's registration had already been cancelled before the invoice date and before generation of the e-way bill. The court held that Rule 138 of the U.P. GST Rules requires a prescribed e-way bill supported by a genuine transaction, and a cancelled supplier could not validly issue a lawful tax invoice. The invoice and e-way bill therefore did not cure the defect in the transaction, and the writ petition was dismissed. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769144 Detention and penalty under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act were upheld because the underlying invoice transaction was found to be sham. Although the goods were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice, the supplier's registration had already been cancelled before the invoice date and before generation of the e-way bill. The court held that Rule 138 of the U.P. GST Rules requires a prescribed e-way bill supported by a genuine transaction, and a cancelled supplier could not validly issue a lawful tax invoice. The invoice and e-way bill therefore did not cure the defect in the transaction, and the writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws GST Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769144