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>E-Way Bill Part 'B' Technical Non-Filing: Penalty Struck Down Due to Lack of Tax Evasion Intent</h1> <h3>M/s. Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another</h3> HC allowed writ petition challenging tax penalty for e-Way Bill Part 'B' non-filing. Court found technical error without tax evasion intent does not ... Levy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts are quite similar to one in 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] 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 May 24, 2022 and October 15, 2022 are quashed and set aside - The petition is allowed. Issues involved: Writ petition under Article 226 challenging penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for non-filling of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill.Summary:1. 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 and subsequent dismissal of the appeal.2. The controversy centered around the non-filling of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill, with no intention to evade tax indicated by the petitioner.3. The petitioner cited precedents to support the argument that non-filling of Part 'B' without intent to evade tax should not attract penalty.4. The appellate authority confirmed non-filling of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill.5. The judgment in a similar case was referenced, emphasizing that technical errors without intent to evade tax should not warrant penalties.6. The court found the facts akin to the referenced case, concluding that the penalty orders were unjustified due to the technical nature of the error and absence of tax evasion intent.7. Consequently, the orders imposing penalties were quashed, and the petition was allowed with directions for the return of security to the petitioner within six weeks.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
