9911796707
TMI BlogPrinciples of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical ErrorsX X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Way Bill before the movement of goods. Arguments Presented Contentions of the Petitioner The petitioner's counsel argued the following points: There were discrepancies in the timing of inspection and statement recorded by the authorities, raising doubts about the proceedings. One e-Way Bill was generated before the detention, and the second one was generated after the detention due to technical glitches, contrary to the authorities' claim that both were generated after detention. The orders passed by the authorities were non-speaking and did not provide adequate reasons for the decision. The appellate authority passed an ex-parte order without affording proper opportunity for a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicle number transporting the goods, and the CGST and SGST were already charged by the supplier. The court highlighted that the authorities failed to establish any intention to evade tax on the part of the petitioner. The court observed that the orders passed by the authorities were based on mere technical errors without considering the absence of any intention to evade tax. The court emphasized that the imposition of penalties must be backed by cogent reasoning, which seemed to be lacking in the present case. The court held that the authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction and acted beyond their powers by imposing tax and penalty without any concrete evidence of an intent to evade tax. Analysis and Decision by the Court The court ana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had generated and produced the e-Way Bills before the passing of the penalty order, and all relevant documents, including tax invoices, accompanied the goods. The court relied on various precedents and legal principles, including the doctrine of mens rea and the need to distinguish between technical errors and deliberate attempts to evade tax. It emphasized that the burden of proof lies on tax authorities to establish the actual intent to evade tax before imposing penalties. Consequently, the court issued a writ of certiorari, quashing the orders passed by the authorities and directing the refund of the tax and penalty amount deposited by the petitioner. Full Text : 2024 (1) TMI 1150 - ALLA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
