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>Penalty proceedings under CGST Act Section 129 quashed due to lack of tax evasion intent</h1> <h3>M/s Shyam Sel And Power Limited Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others</h3> M/s Shyam Sel And Power Limited Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others - 2023 (78) G.S.T.L. 283 (All.) , 2023:AHC:191074 Issues:The judgment involves the constitution of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh and challenges against orders imposing penalty under CGST Act.Constitution of GST Tribunal:The petitioner filed a writ petition due to the absence of a GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh as per the Central Government's notification. The case pertains to challenging orders dated 18.06.2022 and 25.11.2021 passed by the respondents dismissing the appeal and confirming a penalty of Rs. 5,51,602 on the petitioner.Challenges against Penalty Orders:The petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing steel components, transported goods accompanied by tax invoices, e-way bills, and GRs. The goods were seized due to a canceled e-way bill by the purchasing dealer. The petitioner contended that there was no intention to evade tax and that the penalty should have been levied under a different section of the CGST Act. The appeal was dismissed based on the absence of an e-way bill, violating section 138 of the CGST Act.Arguments and Submissions:The petitioner's counsel argued that the penalty should have been imposed under a specific section of the CGST Act and cited a relevant Supreme Court judgment. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel supported the impugned orders, stating that the petitioner failed to provide a genuine e-way bill with the goods, justifying the penalty under section 129 of the CGST Act.Court's Analysis and Decision:The Court observed that the petitioner was unaware of the canceled e-way bill by the purchaser and had communicated the circumstances to the authorities. It was noted that no intent to evade tax was observed during the proceedings. The Court highlighted the necessity of intent to evade tax for penalty under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. Referring to relevant legal provisions and precedents, the Court concluded that the penalty should have been imposed under a different section of the Act. Citing previous judgments, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 18.06.2022 and 25.11.2021.Conclusion:In line with legal principles and precedents, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders imposing penalties on the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of intent to evade tax for penalty under the CGST Act, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
