https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774719 Penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act could not rest on mere electronic submission of the reply or on the absence of business activity at the stated premises. The High Court held that no adverse inference could be drawn solely from those facts to conclude that the invoice was fake or that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods. As the petitioner's name appeared in the invoice and it sought release of the goods, Clause 6 of Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 was applicable. The penalty order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jul 2025 08:40:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774719 Penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act could not rest on mere electronic submission of the reply or on the absence of business activity at the stated premises. The High Court held that no adverse inference could be drawn solely from those facts to conclude that the invoice was fake or that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods. As the petitioner's name appeared in the invoice and it sought release of the goods, Clause 6 of Circular No. 76/50/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 was applicable. The penalty order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774719