2024 (7) TMI 916 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty - Part-B of the E-way bill was not duly filled - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the goods in question were duly accompanied with all required documents such as tax invoice, e-way bill and R.R. There is no finding that there was any discrepancy in quantity and quality of the goods. Further, no material has been brought on record to show that there was any evidence with regard to evasion of tax. Further, only on the allegation that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled, no adverse inference can be with regard to evasion of tax. This Court in Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (9) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held that ' There is no allegation that the goods being transported were being transported without payment of tax. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not filling the Part-B of e-way bill, is clearly supported by the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance wherein the problem arising in filling the part-B of e-way bill was noticed and advisories were issued.' The impugned orders cannot sustain - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed for not filling Part-B of the E-way bill.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed for not duly filling Part-B of the E-way bill, contending that all required documents were in order, and there was no intention to evade tax, citing it as a technical error. The petitioner relied on judgments to support the argument, emphasizing that no adverse inference should be drawn solely based on the incomplete Part-B of the E-way bill.

The court examined the case and found that all necessary documents, including tax invoice, e-way bill, and R.R., were in order. There was no evidence of tax evasion or discrepancies in the goods transported. The court referenced previous judgments to highlight that the mere absence of Part-B of the E-way bill does not indicate an intent to evade tax. The court emphasized that technical errors should not lead to penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act.

The court specifically referred to judgments in similar cases, where it was held that the absence of Part-B of the E-way bill did not establish an intent to evade duty, especially when supported by circulars from the Ministry of Finance addressing such issues. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the return of any security deposited by the petitioner. The judgment concluded by allowing the writ petition and ordering the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner within a specified timeframe.