9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 426 - HC - GSTDetention of goods - penalty order - Part B of the E-Way Bill was not filled up - Intent to evade tax present or not - HELD THAT - Upon consideration of the arguments made by counsel appearing on behalf the parties and upon perusal of the documents, it is clear that the department has been unable to indicate any intention of the petitioner to evade tax. The defect is of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act is not sustainable. The writ petition is allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this judgment are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for non-filling up of Part B of the E-Way Bill and the validity of the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Appellate Authority. Imposition of Penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act: The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed u/s 129(3) of the Act for not filling up Part B of the E-Way Bill. The petitioner argued that despite this technical error, the goods were accompanied by necessary documents like invoice, E-Way Bill, Gate Pass, and bilty, with no intention to evade tax. The court noted that the department failed to prove any intention to evade tax and relied on previous judgments to rule that non-filling up of Part 'B' without intent to evade tax does not warrant a penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. Validity of Orders Passed by Authorities: The court considered the arguments from both parties and examined the documents. It found that the department could not establish any intention on the petitioner's part to evade tax. The court upheld the petitioner's reliance on previous judgments and concluded that the penalty imposed was not sustainable due to the technical nature of the defect and the absence of intent to evade tax. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the orders dated May 6, 2018, and May 7, 2019, directing the respondents to return the security to the petitioner within four weeks.
|
