https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773923 HP HC held that penalty under Section 129(3) of GST Act requires mens rea or intent to evade tax as sine qua non. Court noted that while penalty is civil liability with penal character, Section 130 mandates proving intention to evade tax. Relying on SC judgment in CST vs. Satyam Shivam Papers, court emphasized authorities cannot presume tax evasion from procedural lapses like expired e-way bills without valid reasons. Since petitioner had already paid tax and generated e-way bill after detention, no evasion intent existed. Court distinguished between technical errors and intentional evasion, setting aside penalty order and allowing petition. en-us Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:43:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773923 HP HC held that penalty under Section 129(3) of GST Act requires mens rea or intent to evade tax as sine qua non. Court noted that while penalty is civil liability with penal character, Section 130 mandates proving intention to evade tax. Relying on SC judgment in CST vs. Satyam Shivam Papers, court emphasized authorities cannot presume tax evasion from procedural lapses like expired e-way bills without valid reasons. Since petitioner had already paid tax and generated e-way bill after detention, no evasion intent existed. Court distinguished between technical errors and intentional evasion, setting aside penalty order and allowing petition. Case-Laws GST Thu, 26 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773923