Goods were detained & notice was issued u/s.129 of CGST Act. Assessee paid the penalty to secure release of the goods. Officer did not pass the order in Form GST MOV-09. Assessee filed a writ petition seeking passing of the order. Held: Upon payment of the penalty, all the proceedings stand concluded u/s.129(5) of the […]
Section 129 does not require existence of mens rea to impose penalty. This has been watered-down, to an extent, with the issue of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018, which specifies minimum penalty for minor offences. Yet, roving squad officers have been imposing maximum penalty for any violation under Section 129. Therefore, the judiciary has come to the rescue of innocent taxpayers from the clutches of Section 129.
Even if the dealer does not cancel the e-way bill within 24 hours of its generation, it would remain a matter of inquiry to determine on evidence whether an actual transaction had taken place or not. It is the duty of the authorities to ascertain whether double movement of goods had taken place.
Penalty cannot be imposed under Section 129 of CGST Act if there is no intention to evade tax.
Appellant cannot shirk responsibility of generating fresh E Way Bill if consignment is delayed. But, the Supreme Court held that the order under Article 142 shall not be treated as precedent.