9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 362 - HC - GSTLevy of tax / Penalty - error with regard to the address of the consignee in the E-Way Bill - existence of mens rea on the part of the petitioner for evasion of tax or not - HELD THAT - The imposition of tax is only on the basis of a technical error with regard to address of the consignee that was wrongly written the E-Way Bill. The authorities have not been able to indicate any mens rea on the part of the petitioner for evasion of tax. In a catena of judgments, this Court has held that presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for imposition of penalty and mere technical error would not lead to imposition of penalty - Reliance can be placed in M/S MODERN TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS 2018 (5) TMI 1030 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , M/S GALAXY ENTERPRISES VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS 2023 (11) TMI 359 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and M/S. HINDUSTAN HERBAL COSMETICS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS 2024 (1) TMI 282 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Thus, the orders dated February 22, 2020 and September 8, 2019 are quashed and set aside. The amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to it within a period of one month from date - petition allowed.
Issues involved: Challenge to order dismissing appeal on technical error in E-Way Bill address leading to imposition of tax without mens rea.
Details of Judgment: Issue 1: Error in E-Way Bill address and imposition of tax without mens rea The petitioner challenged the order dismissing the appeal due to an error in the consignee's address on the E-Way Bill, which led to the imposition of tax. The Court noted that besides the address error, the goods matched the invoice description, and there was no indication of mens rea for tax evasion by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that mens rea is essential for imposing a penalty for tax evasion, and mere technical errors should not result in penalties. This principle was supported by previous judgments such as M/s Modern Traders v. State of U.P., M/s Galaxy Enterprises v. State of U.P., and Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the orders dated February 22, 2020, and September 8, 2019. It directed the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner within one month and ordered other consequential reliefs to follow. The writ petition was allowed accordingly.
|
