9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . and Others [ 2024 (1) TMI 282 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and M/s Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. and Others [ 2024 (1) TMI 1150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] held that mens rea to evade tax is essential for imposition of penalty. The factual aspect in the present case clearly does not indicate any mens rea whatsoever for evasion of tax. The goods were accompanied by the relevant documents and the explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order imposing penalty dated October 28, 2022 and the order in Appeal dated March 5, 2024. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill expired, there is a provision in the portal that allows the transporter/consignor/consignee to seek extension of the e-way bill. Undisputedly, such extension was not carried out by the petitioner, and therefore, the contravention of the Rules has taken place and the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act is in order and is required to be sustained. 5. This Court in M/s Hindustan Herba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e sole ground for penalty order being passed under Section 129(3) of Act. 6. In light of the above, I am of the view that the finding of the authorities with regard to intention to evade tax is not supported by the factual matrix of the case, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated October 28, 2022 and March 5, 2024 are quashed and set aside. 7. This Court directs the respondents to refund the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
