2026-VIL-165-GSTAT-LCK

SGST Tribunal

GST - Penalty under Section 129(3) for address discrepancies in documents accompanying goods in transit - Goods were intercepted and detained on the ground that the address in the invoice and transport documents differed from the registered principal place of business of the Appellant. Penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) - Whether the penalty under Section 129(3) is sustainable on the basis of discrepancies relating to the address and particulars of the Appellant, without sufficient evidence establishing contravention and intent to evade tax - HELD - The Department was required to establish the alleged contravention through relevant and reliable evidence. The mere existence of a discrepancy in the address or other particulars, without adequate supporting evidence, cannot automatically be treated as conclusive proof of an intention to evade tax - The Respondent did not bring on record sufficient independent evidence to establish that the goods were deliberately transported in contravention of the Act with an intention to evade tax. No discrepancy was found in the quantity and quality of the goods. The First Appellate Authority did not establish how the discrepancies constituted a legally and factually sustainable ground for the penalty - Proceedings under Section 129 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of assumptions or unsubstantiated technical allegations. The alleged discrepancy was purely technical or procedural in nature, with no mens rea or intent to evade tax - The Order-in-Appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page