https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777266 HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the authority's action levying penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, finding the proper officer had reasonable belief that the consignor's documents did not substantiate the genuineness of goods in transit. The court noted inconsistencies in the driver's statement and absence of payment particulars, declined to decide contested ownership, and left the petitioner remedy of seeking immediate release under section 129(1)(b) before the proper officer (to be decided within two working days) and pursuing statutory appellate remedies. en-us Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Aug 2025 08:41:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777266 HC dismissed the writ petition and upheld the authority's action levying penalties under section 129(1)(a) and 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, finding the proper officer had reasonable belief that the consignor's documents did not substantiate the genuineness of goods in transit. The court noted inconsistencies in the driver's statement and absence of payment particulars, declined to decide contested ownership, and left the petitioner remedy of seeking immediate release under section 129(1)(b) before the proper officer (to be decided within two working days) and pursuing statutory appellate remedies. Case-Laws GST Tue, 19 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777266