2024 (3) TMI 50 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty - evasion of tax or not - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - HELD THAT - The undisputed facts are that firstly the bilty in fact had the details of the truck that was carrying the goods; secondly, the goods were not in variance with the invoice; and thirdly, the Department has not been able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax. 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 invoice 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 June 24, 2018 and June 22, 2019 are quashed and set aside - The petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for non-filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill, and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Imposition of Penalty:
The petitioner challenged an order levying penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act for not filling up Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill. The petitioner argued that the bilty contained truck details, goods matched the invoice, and there was no intention to evade tax. Citing previous judgments, it was contended that non-filling of Part 'B' without intent to evade tax does not warrant a penalty.

Judicial Precedents:
The petitioner relied on judgments in VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited cases to support the argument that technical errors in e-Way Bill filling without tax evasion intent should not attract penalties. The Court referred to the M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing that non-filling of Part 'B' alone, without intent to evade duty, does not justify penalties.

Court's Decision:
The Court found similarities between the present case and M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. case, noting that the error in e-Way Bill was technical without tax evasion intent. Relying on precedents and considering the invoice contained truck details, the Court set aside the orders imposing penalties and directed the return of security to the petitioner within six weeks.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Court quashed the orders imposing penalties for non-filling of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill, emphasizing that technical errors without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act. The judgment provided relief to the petitioner and directed the return of security within a specified timeframe.