9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 1059 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty - the e-way bill had expired one hour fifteen minutes prior to interception - intent to evade tax or not - HELD THAT - This Court in M/s Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. and Others 2024 (1) TMI 282 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and M/s Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. and Others 2024 (1) TMI 1150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held that mens rea to evade tax is essential for imposition of penalty. The factual aspect in the present case clearly does not indicate any mens rea whatsoever for evasion of tax. The goods were accompanied by the relevant documents and the explanation of the petitioner with regard to slow movement of the goods clearly indicate that the truck had broken down resulting in delay. This factual aspect should have been considered by the authorities below. The breach committed by the petitioner with respect to not extending time period of the e-way bill is only a technical breach and it cannot be the sole ground for penalty order being passed under Section 129(3) of Act. The finding of the authorities with regard to intention to evade tax is not supported by the factual matrix of the case, and accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues involved: Challenge to penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 2017 for expired e-way bill.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for an expired e-way bill, contending that the goods matched the documents, and the delay was due to a vehicle breakdown. The respondent argued that the petitioner did not seek an extension for the e-way bill, leading to a contravention of rules. The court noted previous judgments emphasizing mens rea for tax evasion and found no such intent in this case. The technical breach of not extending the e-way bill alone was deemed insufficient for the penalty. Consequently, the court quashed the penalty orders and directed the respondents to refund the tax and penalty amount deposited by the petitioner within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.
|
