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>HC quashes section 129(3) penalty orders for incomplete e-way bill during intrastate stock transfers lacking tax evasion intent</h1> <h3>M/s Vacmet India Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) And Another</h3> M/s Vacmet India Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) And Another - 2024 (81) G.S.T.L. 149 (All.) , 2023:AHC:200160 Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the constitution of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh and the challenge against penalty orders under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act.Issue 1: Constitution of GST Tribunal in Uttar PradeshThe petitioner filed a writ petition challenging penalty orders due to the absence of a GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh. The Court entertained the petition as no GST Tribunal had been constituted in the state as per the central government's notification.Issue 2: Challenge against Penalty Orders under Section 129(3) of the UPGST ActThe petitioner, a registered company dealing in production, faced penalty orders for a transportation incident where part 'B' of the e-way bill was not filled. The petitioner argued that it was a transporter's mistake, promptly rectified. The authorities upheld the penalty despite no intent to evade tax and the goods being stock transferred within the state.The Court observed that the goods were stock transferred from one unit to another within the state, accompanied by proper documents except for the incomplete part 'B' of the e-way bill. The petitioner rectified the discrepancy before the seizure order was passed, showing no intent to evade tax. The Court highlighted the lack of provision for taxing stock transfers within the state.The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the necessity of intent to evade tax for penalty proceedings under the CGST Act. It held that since there was no intention to evade tax in the present case, the penalty orders were unjustified and quashed them.The Court allowed the writ petition, ordering the refund of any fines or penalties deposited by the petitioner. The respondents were directed to comply with the refund within a month, with interest payable if delayed. The authorities were permitted to recover interest from the responsible officer.The matter was listed for review after two months for the filing of an affidavit confirming the refund compliance.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
