Court Overturns Goods Detention; Technical E-way Bill Errors Not Penalized Without Tax Evasion Intent.

The HC quashed the impugned orders by the Additional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner regarding the detention of goods due to an E-way bill issue. The court found no intent to evade tax and emphasized that technical errors without such intent do not warrant penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act. The writ petition was allowed, and the court ordered the return of security and refund of any deposited amounts to the petitioner within specified timeframes.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Additional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner regarding detention of goods due to E-way bill issue.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered company under UPGST Act, challenged orders dated 08.03.2022 and 10.01.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner, respectively, regarding the detention of goods. The petitioner dispatched footwears from Agra to Maharashtra with all necessary documents, but the goods were detained on 08.01.2022 due to an issue with Part B of the E-way bill. The petitioner contended that it was a human error, and there was no intention to evade tax as all accompanying documents were in order. The revenue argued that the proceedings were rightly initiated due to the violation of the act and rule.

The court noted that there was no discrepancy between the documents and the detained goods, and the Part B of the E-way bill was duly filled and produced before the authority. The revenue did not establish any intention on the petitioner's part to evade tax. Citing precedents, the court emphasized that technical errors without intent to evade tax do not warrant penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act. Relying on judgments in similar cases, the court quashed the impugned orders and directed the return of security to the petitioner within six weeks.

In conclusion, the court found that the impugned orders were unsustainable in light of the facts and legal precedents cited. The writ petition was allowed, and any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders was directed to be refunded within a month.

---