Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

E-invoice procedural lapse alone cannot sustain detention penalty where transport records establish a genuine taxable supply without tax evasion.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Non-generation of an e-invoice bearing IRN/QR Code before movement of goods is a procedural breach, but it does not by itself warrant detention penalty under Section 129. Where the tax invoice, e-way bill and lorry receipt identify the parties, goods, value and tax liability, and a later e-invoice matches the transaction, the lapse does not conclusively establish intent to evade tax absent fictitious documents, mismatched goods, value suppression or concealed supply. On these facts, the Section 129 penalty was unsustainable, the appellate order was set aside, and consequential relief was granted subject to statutory procedure.....