<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Intent to evade tax required for detention penalty where unamended law linked e-way bill breaches to confiscation.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104794</link>
    <description>Under the unamended section 129, its link through section 129(6) to section 130 made intent to evade tax necessary before imposing a detention penalty. Transport of traceable motorcycles without an e-way bill did not establish that intent where the e-invoice contained engine and chassis particulars, physical verification found no discrepancy, returns disclosed the transaction, and no finding of evasion existed. The penalty was therefore unsustainable, although lawful procedural action for the documentation lapse remained open. Section 75(4) also required a meaningful hearing; an order issued fifty-seven minutes after the show-cause notice breached natural justice. The penalty orders were set aside and the deposit was refundable with applicable interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2026 08:32:32 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2026 08:32:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=929019" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Intent to evade tax required for detention penalty where unamended law linked e-way bill breaches to confiscation.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104794</link>
      <description>Under the unamended section 129, its link through section 129(6) to section 130 made intent to evade tax necessary before imposing a detention penalty. Transport of traceable motorcycles without an e-way bill did not establish that intent where the e-invoice contained engine and chassis particulars, physical verification found no discrepancy, returns disclosed the transaction, and no finding of evasion existed. The penalty was therefore unsustainable, although lawful procedural action for the documentation lapse remained open. Section 75(4) also required a meaningful hearing; an order issued fifty-seven minutes after the show-cause notice breached natural justice. The penalty orders were set aside and the deposit was refundable with applicable interest.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2026 08:32:32 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=104794</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>