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>Minor E-Way Bill Errors Without Tax Evasion Intent Cannot Trigger Penalties Under Section 129(3) of CGST Act</h1> <h3>Ms. Sangeeta Jain Versus Union of India And 3 Others</h3> Ms. Sangeeta Jain Versus Union of India And 3 Others - 2024 (87) G. S. T. L. 403 (All.) Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 based on discrepancies in the e-way bill and the presence of mens rea for evasion of tax.Imposition of Penalty under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act:The petitioner challenged the order imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, contending that the penalty was solely based on a discrepancy in the dispatch address mentioned in the e-way bill. It was argued that the goods in the truck matched with the invoice and e-way bill, and there was no intention to evade tax. The petitioner emphasized that mens rea is essential for the imposition of penalty, citing the case law of M/s Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the presence of mens rea for tax evasion is necessary for the imposition of penalty. The court held that minor errors in the e-way bill, without evidence of intention to evade tax, should not lead to the imposition of penalty. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the orders dated December 12, 2022, and March 16, 2021.Refund of Tax and Penalty:In light of the court's decision to quash the impugned orders, the court directed the respondents to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The court allowed the writ petition in favor of the petitioner, ordering the refund of the deposited amount.
TaxTMI 