9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of this Court in M/S SHAHIL TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER [ 2023 (6) TMI 360 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] which applies squarely to the case at hand, where it was held that penalty is set aside. Expressing full agreement with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sahil Traders, the impugned penalty order dated 08.09.2023 passed in Form MOV-09 under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 whereby and whereunder penalty of Rs. 37,59,792/- has been levied upon the petitioner by not treating the petitioner to be the owner of goods. Admittedly, the goods were duly accompanied by the tax invoice, e-way bill and bilty issued in the name of the petitioner as the consignor and the goods were in transit through the State of U.P. duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en imposed upon the petitioner under Section 129(1) (b). He, however, could not dispute the fact that intention to evade tax is a per-requisite for imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act. The E-way Bills being the documents of title to the goods were accompanying the goods hence, the conclusion of the revenue that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods is patently erroneous. Con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
