TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Incomplete E-Way Bill Technical Error Does Not Justify Goods Seizure or Tax Penalty, Ruling Affirms Taxpayer Rights</h1> <h3>M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorizd Representative Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Gomti Nagar Lko. And Anr.</h3> M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorizd Representative Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P. Gomti Nagar Lko. And Anr. - TMI Issues:Challenge to demand/penalty order dated 18.04.2018 and appellate order dated 14.05.2019; Refund of penalty amount; Allegation of incomplete e-way bill leading to goods seizure.Analysis:The petitioner, a company engaged in Trading of Ready-made garments, challenged the demand/penalty order and the appellate order passed by the authorities. The issue arose when the respondent inspected the goods being transported by the petitioner's vehicle and found the e-way bill incomplete, leading to goods' detention and subsequent seizure. The petitioner explained that a technical glitch resulted in the e-way bill's Part-B not being filled, as the vehicle number was not registered due to a technical error. The petitioner argued that the department acknowledged this technical issue in a Clarificatory Circular, advising on the correct form filling. The petitioner contended there was no intent to evade duty, supported by the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance addressing similar issues.The petitioner highlighted the Circular dated 14.09.2018, emphasizing that minor errors, such as missing digits/characters in the vehicle number, should not invoke penalty under section 129 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also referenced a previous judgment where the court set aside a seizure order in similar circumstances. The Standing Counsel defended the impugned order, disputing the technical glitch explanation provided by the petitioner.The Court noted that the only allegation against the petitioner was the incomplete Part-B of the e-way bill, with no accusation of tax evasion. The petitioner's explanation for the error was supported by Ministry Circulars addressing such problems. The Court found no intent to evade duty, especially considering the vehicle's Delhi number registration, similar to a previous judgment's scenario. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to refund the amount paid by the petitioner within two months.In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the technical nature of the error in the e-way bill and the absence of any intent to avoid tax payment. The judgment underscored the importance of considering technical glitches and relevant circulars in such cases to prevent undue penalization.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
