9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1096 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty - goods were unloaded at a place that was not registered in the registration certificate - shifting of burden of proof on the assessee to show that there was no intention to evade tax (onus to prove) - HELD THAT - The intention to evade tax is sine qua non for imposition of penalty. The facts in the present clearly indicate that the place where the goods were unloaded is the godown belonging to the petitioner and not to any third party. It is not in dispute that this particular godown was registered as place of business of the petitioner in the erstwhile Value Added Tax regime. There is no intention to evade tax whatsoever. The imposition of penalty in such circumstances is not warranted. The judgement of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Algae Labs Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (4) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT also supports the case of the petitioner that unloading of goods at a different place by itself would not lead to imposition of penalty. The impugned order dated July 28, 2022 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
Issues involved: Application u/s Article 226 of the Constitution challenging penalty imposed u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for unloading goods at a place not registered in the registration certificate.
Summary: 1. The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act due to unloading goods at a place not registered in the registration certificate. The petitioner argued that there was no intention to evade tax, citing a relevant judgment. 2. The revenue authority contended that the place of unloading differed from the e-way bill address, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee to show no intention to evade tax. 3. Referring to a judgment emphasizing mens rea for tax evasion, the court noted that a typographical error in the e-way bill without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalty imposition. The court found no intention to evade tax based on the facts presented. 4. Relying on a Madras High Court judgment, the court concluded that unloading goods at a different place does not warrant penalty imposition. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed with consequential reliefs granted. 5. Any amount deposited by the assessee related to the demand shall be returned within six weeks.
|
