https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784054 Where goods in transit were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice, the penalty had to reflect the actual nature of the infraction proved. The Court held that the authority could not compute detention penalty under section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on those facts, and that the matter had to be reassessed under section 129(1)(a). The impugned penalty order was set aside, with release of the goods to follow on deposit of the penalty properly assessed under the correct clause. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Dec 2025 08:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784054 Where goods in transit were accompanied by an e-way bill and tax invoice, the penalty had to reflect the actual nature of the infraction proved. The Court held that the authority could not compute detention penalty under section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on those facts, and that the matter had to be reassessed under section 129(1)(a). The impugned penalty order was set aside, with release of the goods to follow on deposit of the penalty properly assessed under the correct clause. Case-Laws GST Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784054