https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783759 Where goods were intercepted while carrying a tax invoice showing the registered dealer's particulars, and the only alleged default was absence of the e-way bill, the penalty was to be computed under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 for movement without proper documents. The higher measure under Section 129(1)(b) was inapplicable because that clause addressed a different violation. The detention penalty order was therefore interfered with, the penalty was directed to be recomputed under the correct provision, and consequential relief was available for release of the goods upon deposit in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Dec 2025 10:38:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783759 Where goods were intercepted while carrying a tax invoice showing the registered dealer's particulars, and the only alleged default was absence of the e-way bill, the penalty was to be computed under Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 for movement without proper documents. The higher measure under Section 129(1)(b) was inapplicable because that clause addressed a different violation. The detention penalty order was therefore interfered with, the penalty was directed to be recomputed under the correct provision, and consequential relief was available for release of the goods upon deposit in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Fri, 12 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783759