Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ted Petitioner's Arguments The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made the following submissions: The vehicle was accompanied by two e-Invoices and two E-Way Bills, and the goods matched the description in these documents. The only discrepancy found at the time of detention was that one of the E-Way Bills had expired. Apart from this discrepancy, there was no finding regarding the petitioner's intention to evade tax. The petitioner provided documents indicating that the vehicle had broken down, evidenced by a letter from the mechanic who repaired it and a 'fast tag' chart tracing the movement of the goods. The authorities did not consider these documents. The petitioner relied on judgments from the Allahab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d upon by the petitioner were not considered by the authorities. The authorities focused solely on the expiry of the E-Way Bill and the lack of explanation from the petitioner regarding the fresh generation of the E-Way Bill. However, the goods in the vehicle were covered by two e-Invoices and two E-Way Bills, and only one E-Way Bill had expired. There was no dispute regarding the consignor, consignee, or the description of the goods in the vehicle. The authorities could not indicate any intention on the part of the petitioner to evade tax in relation to the e-Invoices and E-Way Bills. While the petitioner committed a technical violation by not generating a fresh E-Way Bill, the authorities could not establish that the E-Way Bill had been u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de tax. The court noted that the goods in the vehicle were covered by two e-Invoices and two E-Way Bills, and only one E-Way Bill had expired. There was no dispute regarding the consignor, consignee, or the description of the goods. The authorities failed to consider the documents provided by the petitioner, which explained the delay in the movement of the goods due to a vehicle breakdown. Relying on its previous judgments, the court reiterated the legal principle that mens rea (intention or guilty mind) is essential for the imposition of penalty, particularly in cases related to tax evasion. A mere technical violation, without any intention to evade tax, cannot warrant the imposition of penalty u/s 129(3) of the Act. Consequently, the cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X