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>Penalty under Section 129(3) upheld for transporting goods without invoice or e-way bill documentation</h1> <h3>M/s Jhansi Enterprises, Nandanpura, Jhansi Versus State of U.P. And Others</h3> M/s Jhansi Enterprises, Nandanpura, Jhansi Versus State of U.P. And Others - 2024 (85) G.S.T.L. 414 (All.) Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are related to the legality of the seizure and penalty imposed on the petitioner for the transportation of goods without proper documentation, specifically the absence of an e-way bill and invoice during interception by authorities.Facts:The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Goods and Services Tax Act, sold a consignment of TMT Bars to a buyer. The vehicle transporting the goods was intercepted by authorities, who found that the necessary documents such as e-way bill and invoice were not produced at the time of interception. Despite later submission of these documents, the authorities imposed a penalty on the petitioner for contravention of tax laws.Contentions of the Petitioner:The petitioner argued that the delay in generating the e-way bill was due to unforeseen circumstances, and there was no intention to evade tax. They cited previous court judgments where seizure and penalty were not justified if the e-way bill was downloaded before seizure and tax was paid. The petitioner also contended that the vehicle was parked for unloading at the time of interception, and all relevant documents were submitted before the seizure order.Contentions of the Respondents:The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to comply with the legal requirement of generating the e-way bill before transportation, leading to the seizure of goods. They emphasized the importance of following tax laws and cited court judgments supporting the seizure and penalty in cases of non-compliance with documentation requirements.Analysis and Conclusion:The court considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed relevant legal provisions. It noted that the absence of invoice and e-way bill during interception raised a presumption of intention to evade tax. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the missing documents and did not rebut the presumption of tax evasion. Additionally, the court highlighted that post-interception submission of documents does not absolve the petitioner from liability. The court also dismissed the argument that difficulties in generating e-way bills before April 2018 justified the petitioner's actions. Ultimately, the court upheld the seizure and penalty imposed on the petitioner, stating that the actions of the authorities were lawful and required no intervention.Judgment:The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, affirming the legality of the seizure and penalty imposed by the authorities for non-compliance with documentation requirements under the tax laws.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
