9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The record further shows that no finding has been recorded with the regard to intention to evade legitimate amount of tax. This Court in M/s Falguni Steels [ 2024 (1) TMI 1150 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] has taken the view that even if the e-way bill was not generated at the time of interception of goods, but the same was produced before passed the seizure order as well as in absence of any ground with regard to intention to evade payment of tax, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 5 as well as the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 under section 129(3) of the GST Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s given to the same and the impugned seizure order was passed imposing penalty and interest under section 129(3) of the UP GST Act. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred first appeal, which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 27.07.2021. Hence, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no discrepancy, whatsoever, was found accompanying the goods. He further submits that once the duly filled in e-way bill was submitted before passing of the seizure order, the goods ought to have been released. He further submits that even no finding has been recorded by any of the authorities below with regard to intention to evade tax, which is an essential ingredient for levying penalty and de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll as in absence of any ground with regard to intention to evade payment of tax, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Relevant paragraph nos. 15 to 17 of the said judgement is quoted below:- 15. What emerges from a perusal of the aforesaid judgments is that, if penalty is imposed, in the presence of all the valid documents, even if e-Way Bill has not been generated, and in the absence of any determination to evade tax, it cannot be sustained. Order dated February 21, 2019 passed by the Respondent No. 2 and the order dated October 20, 2019 passed by the Respondent No. 3, in the instant case stand on a foundation less ground, since there is no intention to evade tax, which could sustain the impugned orders. 16. In the present factual matri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he documents including the tax invoices, were found to be in order, the Respondent No. 2 had no sound rationale to pass the impugned order dated February 20, 2019. A bare reading of the said order would show that the presence of the tax invoices, was recorded by the Respondent No. 2. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 2 also rejected the e-Way Bills which were generated post the detention of the goods, since the same in its opinion, was contrary to the provisions of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Nowhere in the said impugned order, it has been recorded that there was any definite intention to evade tax. The essence of any penal imposition is intrinsically linked to the presence of mens rea, a facet conspicuously absent from the record. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
