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>Procedural Error in E-Way Bill Filing Leads to Penalty Quashing Under GST Act Section 129(3)</h1> <h3>M/s Roli Enterprises Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others</h3> HC quashed penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of UP GST Act for non-filling of e-Way Bill Part 'B'. Court found the error was technical, with no tax ... Levy of penalty - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of M/S CITYKART RETAIL PVT. LTD. THRU. AUTHORIZD REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. GOMTI NAGAR LKO. AND ANR. [2022 (9) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that In the present case, prima-facie no intent to evade the duty can be ascertained, only on the allegation that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled, more so, in view of the fact that the vehicle in which the goods were being transported on a Delhi number. In the present case, the facts are quite similar to one in M/s City kart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case and there are no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter, as the invoice itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Once this fact has been substantiated, there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. The orders dated November 10, 2020 and January 10, 2022 are quashed and set aside - The petition is 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
