9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1073X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no evasion of tax. However, when the the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax. In the present case the department has failed to do so and infact has not even tried to do so. The documents produced by the petitioner at the time of the interception itself indicates that the goods have been transported from a SEZ Unit to the DTA after payment of custom duty and payment of IGST. The department has accordingly failed to shift the burden of proof on the petitioner as the only error found by the department was that the vehicle number was incorrect. Apart from this one error in the e-way bill, nothing has been sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition are as follows :- 3. Petitioner is a company, engaged in manufacturing Artist Brush and its materials, for which Petitioner is duly registered under the GST regime with GSTN No.09AAACI2206F1Z2. Petitioner is having its manufacturing unit established in Noida Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as 'SEZ'). In normal course of business, petitioner sold 102 boxes of Artist Brushes valuing Rs. 16,86,696.68/- to one M/s Pidilite Industries Ltd., Delhi (GSTIN No.07AAACP4156B1ZU) vide Tax Invoice No.18- 19/CEN/23 dated 14.6.2018, after charging Integrated Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'IGST') at applicable rate of 18%. Since the transaction in question was from a SEZ unit to a Do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the strength of valid and genuine documents, specified under Rule 138A, then also Respondent No.3 passed detention order detaining the goods on the ground that the goods were being transported on a vehicle different from that declared on e-way bill. Contentions of the Petitioner 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the goods were accompanied by the tax invoice, packing list, bill of entry for home consumption and the e-way bill. He submitted that the only mistake in all these documents was that the truck number written in the e-way bill was incorrect. He submitted that this mistake had occurred because of a problem in the initial truck that was supposed to carry the goods. He relied on a letter provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty is invalid in cases when there is no mens-rea for evasion of tax. Contentions of the Respondents 5. Per contra, Mr. Pandey, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that in the present case the mistake by the petitioner cannot be seen as a clerical error as the truck number itself is different. He further submitted that since the distance between NOIDA to Madoli, Delhi is only 100 kilometers, there is always chance of the e-way bill being used on several occasions resulting in evasion of tax. Counsel further distinguished the judgement passed in Falguni Steels (Supra) by saying that the factual matrix therein in that matter was different from the present case. Analysis and Conclusion 6. Upon a perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll, nothing has been shown by the department to justify the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. The impugned order also failed to take into account the document produced by the petitioner of the transporter wherein the explanation was given with regard to the reason for the mistake of the vehicle number in the e-way bill. 7. One may reiterate the principles laid down in the judgment of Falguni Steels (Supra) with regard to imposition of penalty. Relevant paragraph nos.19 and 20 are delineated below :- 19. Mere technical errors, without having any potential financial implications, should not be the grounds for imposition of penalties. The underlying philosophy is to maintain a fair and just tax system, where pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntegrity of taxation systems. Recognising the distinction between technical errors and intentional evasion is essential for maintaining a balanced and equitable approach to tax enforcement. As nations continue their pursuit of effective tax administration, upholding this principle becomes paramount in fostering voluntary compliance, preserving trust in the tax system, and ensuring the judicious use of regulatory powers. 8. On the perusal of the above principles, it is clear that intention to evade tax is sine qua non before imposition of penalty. In present case the department has failed to establish any such intention whatsoever. Furthermore, the Appellate Authority has failed to look into all the documents that were produced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
