Judicial Relief: Technical E-Way Bill Deviation Does Not Constitute Intentional Tax Evasion Under Section 129(3)

HC allowed writ petition challenging tax penalty under Section 129(3) of UP GST Act. Court found no intentional tax evasion when goods were unloaded at a location slightly different from e-way bill registration. Penalty order was quashed, and any deposited amounts were directed to be returned within six weeks, emphasizing that technical errors without fraudulent intent should not attract punitive measures.

---

---

Issues involved: Application u/s Article 226 of the Constitution challenging penalty imposed u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for unloading goods at a place not registered in the registration certificate.

Summary:
1. The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act due to unloading goods at a place not registered in the registration certificate. The petitioner argued that there was no intention to evade tax, citing a relevant judgment.

2. The revenue authority contended that the place of unloading differed from the e-way bill address, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee to show no intention to evade tax.

3. Referring to a judgment emphasizing mens rea for tax evasion, the court noted that a typographical error in the e-way bill without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalty imposition. The court found no intention to evade tax based on the facts presented.

4. Relying on a Madras High Court judgment, the court concluded that unloading goods at a different place does not warrant penalty imposition. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed with consequential reliefs granted.

5. Any amount deposited by the assessee related to the demand shall be returned within six weeks.

---