https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777619 The HC held that detention and penalty under Section 129 of the UP GST Act, imposed solely for alleged misclassification, could not stand where e-tax invoice, e-way bill and builty accompanied the goods and there was no discrepancy as to quality or quantity. Relying on precedent that penalties cannot be imposed on mere speculation of undervaluation, the court quashed the impugned orders dated 4.1.2025 and 22.5.2024 and allowed the petition, setting aside the seizure-based penalty. en-us Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2025 08:01:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777619 The HC held that detention and penalty under Section 129 of the UP GST Act, imposed solely for alleged misclassification, could not stand where e-tax invoice, e-way bill and builty accompanied the goods and there was no discrepancy as to quality or quantity. Relying on precedent that penalties cannot be imposed on mere speculation of undervaluation, the court quashed the impugned orders dated 4.1.2025 and 22.5.2024 and allowed the petition, setting aside the seizure-based penalty. Case-Laws GST Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777619