Missing Part B in e-way bill despite vehicle details on invoice treated as technical lapse; s.129(3) penalty quashed (3)

Penalty under s.129(3) of the GST Act for alleged non-filling of Part B of the e-way bill was in issue. Applying the HC's earlier ruling on analogous facts, the Court held that mere non-filling of Part B, where the invoice itself disclosed the transport vehicle particulars and there was no prima facie material indicating intent to evade tax, constitutes a technical lapse insufficient to attract penal action. Consequently, the penalty was held unsustainable, and the impugned orders were quashed; the writ petition was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for non-filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner against the penalty.

Imposition of Penalty:
The petitioner challenged an order levying penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act for not filling up Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill. The record showed that the bilty contained truck details, goods matched the invoice, and no intention to evade tax was proven. Citing previous judgments, the petitioner argued that non-filling of Part 'B' without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalty. The appellate authority confirmed non-filling of Part 'B' but did not establish tax evasion intent.

Judicial Precedents:
The petitioner relied on judgments like VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited v. Commissioner Commercial Tax to support the argument that technical errors in e-Way Bill without tax evasion intent should not attract penalties. Reference was made to the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance regarding difficulties in filling Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill.

Court's Decision:
The Court, considering the facts similar to previous cases, found that the petitioner's error in not filling Part 'B' was technical and not indicative of tax evasion. Quoting M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case, the Court emphasized that no intent to evade duty was evident, especially when the invoice contained truck details. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders imposing penalty and directed the return of security to the petitioner within six weeks.

---