TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Taxpayer Wins Challenge Against Technical E-Way Bill Penalty, Secures Relief Under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act</h1> <h3>Ms Varun Beverages Limited Versus State Of Up And 2 Others</h3> HC allowed writ petition challenging penalty under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act. The court found the penalty unsustainable as the e-Way Bill defect was ... Penalty order passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - only part B of the e-way bill could not be generated - intent to evade tax or not - HELD THAT:- Upon consideration of the arguments made by counsel appearing on behalf the parties and upon perusal of the documents, it is clear that the department has been unable to indicate any intention of the petitioner to evade tax. In the present case, the defect was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act is unsustainable. The orders dated March 6, 2020 and September 16, 2023 are quashed and set aside - The writ petition is allowed. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 based on the non-filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill without any intention to evade tax.Imposition of Penalty under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act:The writ petitioner challenged the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, along with the order of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner argued that the invoices contained the vehicle number for transportation, only part B of the e-way bill was not generated, and there was no intention to evade tax. Citing relevant case law, the petitioner contended that non-filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill without any intention to evade tax should not lead to penalty under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act. The court noted that the department failed to establish any intention of tax evasion by the petitioner. Relying on precedents, the court found no reason to disagree with the petitioner's position. It was concluded that the penalty imposed was unsustainable as the defect was technical in nature without any intent to evade tax.Decision and Relief:The High Court quashed and set aside the orders imposing the penalty dated March 6, 2020, and September 16, 2023. The writ petition was allowed, and consequential reliefs were directed to follow. The respondents were instructed to return the security to the petitioner within six weeks.
TaxTMI 
