|
Authority |
One liner |
|
2024(03)LCX0329
Kerala High Court
Shri Coimbatore Jewellers India Private
Limited
|
Belated Writ petition filed by assessee
against penalty order passed cannot be entertained. |
|
2024(02)LCX0304
Allahabad High Court
Patil Biotech Private Limited
|
Penalty u/s 129(3) be cannot be imposed without any proof of
intention to evade tax. |
|
2024(02)LCX0119
Calcutta High Court
Mohammad Shamasher
|
|
|
2024(01)LCX0383
Allahabad High Court
Shamhu Saran Agarwal And Company
|
Goods are not to be detained on the ground of under valuation.
|
|
2023(09)LCX0337
Madras High Court
Tvl.V.V.Iron and Steels
|
Issuance of notice u/s 129(3) TNGST Act
within seven days has to be calculated from the date on which seizure
was to be effected and not from the following date. |
|
2023(09)LCX0353
Uttarakhand High Court
Prestress Steel LLP
|
Mere non production of the delivery challan
cannot lead to revocation of section 129. |
|
2023(02)LCX0025
Allahabad High Court
Varun Beverages Ltd.
|
The minor discrepancy as to the registration
of vehicle in State in the E-way will would not attract proceedings for
penalty under Section 129. |
|
2022(03)LCX0289
Madhya Pradesh High Court
CREATE CONSULTS |
Mistake of wrong mention of name in eway bill is clerical mistake thus,
proceeding under Section 129 of GST may not be issued. |
|
2023(02)LCX0025
Allahabad High Court
Varun Beverages Ltd.
|
The minor discrepancy as to the registration
of vehicle in State in the E-way will would not attract proceedings for
penalty under Section 129. |
|
2022(01)LCX0062
Supreme Court of India
Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited
|
|
|
2022(03)LCX0001
Calcutta High Court
Ashok Kumar Sureka |
|
|
2022(08)LCX0063
Karnataka High Court
Rajeev Traders |
Officer doing detention u/s 129 cannot do
confiscation. |
|
2021(07)LCX0188
Kerala High Court
VST AND SONS (P) LIMITED, MUTHUKUMAR MEENAKSHY
|
|
|
2021(06)LCX0015
Telangana High Court
Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt.
Ltd. |
Order u/s 129(3) issued for expiry of E Way
bill without any evidence of evasion of tax is set aside |
|
2020(08)LCX0040
Kerala High Court
ABCO TRADES (P) LTD |
No
detention of goods u/s 129 on ground that e-way bill show consignee as
unregistered person. |
|
2020(03)LCX0048
Kerala High Court
Hindustan Coca Cola Private Limited |
Detention of goods not
possible on ground that there is dispute in rate of GST. |
|
2019(05)LCX0035
Punjab and Haryana High Court
DSG Papers
Private Limited |
|
|
2019(11)LCX0009
Kerala High Court
Kannangayathu Metals |
Detention of goods solely because driver had
opted for a different route was not justified. |
|
2019(08)LCX0007
Karnataka High Court
Raj Enterprises
|
|
|
2019(06)LCX0028
Karnataka High Court
Sri B.Narasimha Pai |
|
|
2019(11)LCX0021
Karnataka High Court
Bright Road Logistics Pvt. Ltd |
Matter remitted to Commissioner (Appeal) to
reconsider appeal where appeal was rejected passing a non-speaking
order. |
|
2019(03)LCX0045
Allahabad High Court
Praveen Kumar Jain
|
Petition dismissed - court didnot find any
ground to interfere in challenged SCN issued u/s 130 for confiscation |
|
2019(11)LCX0005
Kerala High Court
Relcon Foundations (P) Ltd |
Detaining on ground that GSTR-3B and GSTR-1
had not been filed was not justified. |
|
2019(10)LCX0010
Gujarat High Court
S. S. Enterprises |
Release of detained goods on depositing
amount of tax and penalty subject to the final outcome |
|
2019(08)LCX0004
Gujarat High Court
Sree Ram Twistex Private Limited |
Release of seized goods and vehicle subject
to final outcome of confiscation. |
|
2019(06)LCX0026
Karnataka High Court
Kalebudde Logistics |
|
|
2019(04)LCX0026
Gujarat High Court
Neuvera Wellness
Ventures Pvt Ltd |
Detention as Part-B of E-way bill was not
generated - Goods being perishable released on against bond |
|
2018(11)LCX0032
Allahabad High Court
Timexo Fasteners India
Private Ltd. |
Goods detained u/s 129 released as the EWB
was allowed to expire after the detention of the goods by incorrectly
recording the time of interception |
|
2018(11)LCX0033
Allahabad High Court
Sunaiba Industries |
Goods detained on account of improper
invoice in respect of some of the builties |
|
2018(04)LCX0034
Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Chand
Kannu Mal |
WEF 01.02.2018 there was no requirement to
download the Transit Declaration Form for inter state movement of goods
|
|
2018(04)LCX0035
Allahabad High Court
Harley Foods Products
Pvt. Ltd |
Seizure proceedings quashed as Goods
transported from Ahmedabad to be delivered at Meerut accompanying
Gujarat EWB not produced at the time of interception |
|
2018(11)LCX0031
Allahabad High Court
Shree Mahakali Trading Company |
Goods detained released on compliance of
section 129(1)(a) as the proper e-.way bill was immediately generated
and as such there is no willful or deliberate defiance of any provisions
|
|
2018(11)LCX0035
Allahabad High Court
Aman Enterprises And
Beej Bhandar |
Petitioner being the owner of goods detained
and having paid entire amount of the value of the goods to the selling
dealer allowed to take goods subject to compliance of section 129(1)(a) |
|
2018(11)LCX0037
Allahabad High Court
Shah Concast Private
Limited |
Goods detained for not producing EWB at the
relevant time, however immediately generated after detention |
|
2018(11)LCX0036
Allahabad High Court
Integrated Tech 9 Labs
Private Limited |
Writ petition dismissed without adjudicating
the validity of seizure order giving liberty to petitioner to take the
course to the appropriate remedy as available in law |
|
2018(03)LCX0022
Allahabad High Court
Shri Dutt India Private
Limited |
Having paid tax and penalty u/s 129
respondent is directed to complete adjudication within one month after
affording an opportunity of hearing |
|
2018(10)LCX0026
Allahabad High Court
Bajrang Enterprises
|
Detention of goods u/s 129 for not producing
EWB at relevant time |
|
2018(04)LCX0039
Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Goods Transport
Corp |
Goods detained for not accompanying TDF for
inter state movement is unsustainable |
|
2018(04)LCX0041
Allahabad High Court
Singh Tyres
|
Seizure order unsustainable in law as the
same has been passed ignoring EWB produced before the date fixed for
reply, whereas the order has been passed on a day before the date
allowed for reply |
|
2018(04)LCX0038
Allahabad High Court
Super India (Global)
Logistics Ltd |
Detention order for not accompanying TDF is
illegal and unsustainable |
|
2018(11)LCX0029
Allahabad High Court
Mkc Traders And Another |
Goods seized for not accompanying invoice
and EWB |
|
2018(06)LCX0051
Delhi High Court
Gati Kintetsu Express
Pvt. Ltd. |
|
|
2018(07)LCX0049
Gujarat High Court
Vanrajbhai Hasmukhbhai Chauhan |
Goods detained onthe ground that e-way bill
was not tendered for the goods in movement , bill amount is under
-invoice and LR is blank |
|
2017(12)LCX0004
Kerala High Court
Kalliyath Steel Traders |
|
|
2018(11)LCX0009
Kerala High Court
Daily Express |
Compliance with the statutory mandate under
Section 129(1)(b) is must for interim custody of the goods |
|
2019(02)LCX0005
Kerala High Court
Daily Express |
Vehicle with goods detained as Part B of EWB
was not complete |
|
2018(01)LCX0052
Kerala High Court
Kitex Ltd. |
When the statute itself provides for such a
mechanism, a deviation there from cannot be ordered, i.e. provisional
release on payment of 50% tax as is ordered in the judgment under appeal
cannot be sustained. |
|
2018(11)LCX0014
Kerala High Court
Tayab Zainulabdin |
Goods released on furnishing Bank Guarantee
for tax and penalty found due and a bond for the value of goods in the
form as prescribed under Rule 140(1) |
|
2018(11)LCX0028
Kerala High Court
Nousad Allakkat
|
Non production of goods on demand is not a
ground for imposition o penalty u/s 129 |
|
2018(09)LCX0011
Kerala High Court
Panel Source LLP
|
Goods detained for not uploading Part-B of
EWB |
|
2018(07)LCX0002
Kerala High Court
Fashion Marble and Granite
Company Pvt. Ltd |
Respondent's insistence that the petitioner
should pay the amount either in cash or through demand draft against
goods seized cannot be sustained |
|
2018(10)LCX0041
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Modern Insecticides Limited
|
Release of seized goods shall not be treated as
provisional as there is no dispute regarding identity of the goods |
|
2017(08)LCX0050
Kerala High Court
Madhu M.B |
Goods detained due to the fact that on
physical verification it was found that there were excess goods being
transported interstate |
