9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 1079 - HC - GSTLevy of Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Errors in e-way bills - dispatch address mentioned in the e-way bill - Existence of Mens rea or not - HELD THAT - A perusal of the order imposing penalty indicates that the original authority has stated that mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty. This view is not correct in law and the conclusion reached thereafter is obviously illegal - This Court in M/s Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. and Others 2024 (1) TMI 282 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held that mens rea to evade tax is essential for imposition of penalty. The orders impugned in this writ petition cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the orders are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 based on discrepancies in the e-way bill and the presence of mens rea for evasion of tax. Imposition of Penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act: The petitioner challenged the order imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, contending that the penalty was solely based on a discrepancy in the dispatch address mentioned in the e-way bill. It was argued that the goods in the truck matched with the invoice and e-way bill, and there was no intention to evade tax. The petitioner emphasized that mens rea is essential for the imposition of penalty, citing the case law of M/s Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the presence of mens rea for tax evasion is necessary for the imposition of penalty. The court held that minor errors in the e-way bill, without evidence of intention to evade tax, should not lead to the imposition of penalty. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the orders dated December 12, 2022, and March 16, 2021. Refund of Tax and Penalty: In light of the court's decision to quash the impugned orders, the court directed the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The court allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, ordering the refund of the deposited amount.
|
