9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 160 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - non filling up of Part B of the e-Way Bill - HELD THAT - In the present case the facts are quite similar to one in M/S CITYKART RETAIL PVT. LTD. THRU. AUTHORIZD REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. GOMTI NAGAR LKO. AND ANR. 2022 (9) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and there are no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter as the bilty itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Once this fact has been substantiated there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. The orders dated December 26 2020 and November 29 2021 are quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed.
Issues involved: Writ petition challenging penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for non-filling of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill.
Summary: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the penalty imposed on them u/s 129(3) of the Act for not filling up Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill. The petitioner contended that there was no intention to evade tax as the bilty contained truck details and goods matched the invoice. The appellate authority upheld the penalty citing non-filling of Part 'B'. The petitioner relied on previous court judgments to support their argument that mere non-filling of Part 'B' without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalty imposition. In analyzing the case, the court referred to a previous judgment and highlighted that the only issue was the non-filling of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill, without any indication of tax evasion intent. The court emphasized that the technical error without intent to evade tax should not warrant a penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. Drawing parallels to a similar case, the court quashed the orders imposing penalties and directed the return of security to the petitioner within six weeks.
|
