<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>200% penalty under s.129 CGST/WBGST set aside where no mens rea, traffic delay covered by 8-hour extension</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92461</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the petition, holding that the 200% penalty levied under s.129 CGST/WBGST was unwarranted and ordering the appellate and original orders set aside. The court found no evidence of mens rea to evade tax, accepted the appellants&#039; undisputed plea of traffic-induced delay and applied the statutory 8-hour extension available to transporter/owner/supplier, leaving only a residual delay which revenue failed to characterise as mala fide. In consequence the HC directed the appropriate departmental authority to refund the penalty already recovered upon receipt of an application by the appellants within eight weeks. The imposition of penalty in a mechanical manner was declared unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:31 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>200% penalty under s.129 CGST/WBGST set aside where no mens rea, traffic delay covered by 8-hour extension</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92461</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the petition, holding that the 200% penalty levied under s.129 CGST/WBGST was unwarranted and ordering the appellate and original orders set aside. The court found no evidence of mens rea to evade tax, accepted the appellants&#039; undisputed plea of traffic-induced delay and applied the statutory 8-hour extension available to transporter/owner/supplier, leaving only a residual delay which revenue failed to characterise as mala fide. In consequence the HC directed the appropriate departmental authority to refund the penalty already recovered upon receipt of an application by the appellants within eight weeks. The imposition of penalty in a mechanical manner was declared unjustified.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2025 08:45:31 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92461</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>