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>Tax Appeal Upheld: E-Way Bill Discrepancies Deemed Unintentional, 200% Penalty Overturned After Careful Review</h1> <h3>Rumki Biswas. Versus Senior Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Budge Budge Charge & anr.</h3> Rumki Biswas. Versus Senior Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Budge Budge Charge & anr. - TMI Issues:1. Application to condone delay in filing the appeal.2. Challenge against the order imposing a penalty for violating tax rules. Analysis:1. The judgment begins with an application to condone a delay of 68 days in filing an appeal. The court, after hearing the appellant's counsel and considering the reasons provided in the affidavit, condones the delay and allows the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.CAN 1 of 2022) without any costs. 2. The main issue in the appeal (MAT 1777 of 2022) is regarding a penalty imposed for violating tax rules. The appellant challenges an order imposing a 200% penalty for allegedly violating Rule 138 of WBGST/CGST Rules, 2017. The court notes that the appellate authority's order was lengthy and not entirely necessary due to the central issue of whether there was an intention to evade duty. The appellant's explanation regarding the e-way bill discrepancies is considered, and the court opines that it appears to be a bona fide error rather than an intentional evasion. 3. The court emphasizes the need to establish the appellant's bona fides and lack of intention to evade duty. It points out that the appellate authority's decision was overly detailed, referencing unnecessary High Court decisions. The court decides to remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a fresh consideration, focusing on the appellant's conduct and intent to evade payment of duty. 4. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and the writ petition is also allowed. The appellate authority's order imposing the penalty is set aside, and the matter is remanded for a fresh assessment of whether there was a deliberate intention to evade duty. The appellant is instructed to present all relevant materials without burdening the appellate authority with unnecessary legal precedents. 5. The judgment concludes with no order as to costs and a directive to provide an urgent certified copy of the order to the parties upon compliance with legal formalities. The judgment is delivered by Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, with agreement from Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
