Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (7) TMI 786 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty u/s 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act - petitioner is not the owner of goods - HELD THAT - Since the invoice was presented in the present case the authority concerned has erred in law by imposing penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The impugned order dated June 24 2025 is quashed and set aside with a direction upon the authority concerned to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law keeping in mind the principle laid down in M/s Halder Enterprises 2023 (12) TMI 514 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT within a period of eight weeks from date. Petition disposed off.
The Allahabad High Court, in a writ petition under Article 226 challenging orders under the UP GST Act 2017, quashed the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act. The Court relied on its prior decision in M/s Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P., 2024 (2) ADJ 660 (DB), which clarified that when an invoice is presented, penalty under Section 129(1)(b) is not warranted. The Court held that the authority erred in imposing such penalty and accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2025. It directed the authority to grant the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order in conformity with the legal principles established in M/s Halder Enterprises within eight weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|