1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Minor Date Error in E-Way Bill Doesn't Prove Tax Evasion, Penalty Quashed for Unintentional Procedural Discrepancy Under GST Rules</h1> HC ruled that a minor date discrepancy in e-way bill during inter-branch goods transfer does not constitute tax evasion. The Court set aside penalty and ... Evasion of tax - mismatch in the e-way bill and the branch transfer invoice - levy of penalty and tax on the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that even if there was discrepancy in the date which had occurred in the e-way bill as well as branch transfer invoice, there was no element of evasion of tax nor could any situation be pointed out to this Court where merely because of the said discrepancy, the petitioner could have evaded tax. Petition allowed. Issues involved:The issue involves the imposition of penalty and tax under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act due to a discrepancy in the e-way bill and tax invoice during the transportation of goods from one branch to another.Summary:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the GST Act, was transporting goods from one branch to another when a discrepancy in dates on the e-way bill and branch transfer invoice led to the interception of goods and imposition of penalty and tax. The petitioner argued that it was a human error, not intentional tax evasion, and requested the release of goods. The Adjudicating Officer imposed penalty and tax despite the explanation provided by the petitioner.The High Court observed that there was no evasion of tax as the goods were being transferred between branches and all relevant documents were in order except for the date discrepancy. The Court noted that the error in the e-way bill date was unintentional and did not indicate tax evasion. The Court held that the penalty and tax imposition was unjustified as there was no intent to evade tax in the stock transfer transaction.Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 3.11.2020 and 09.08.2018, ruling in favor of the petitioner and allowing the writ petition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
