2024 (2) TMI 363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondents : Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief Standing Counsel JUDGMENT 1. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the penalty order dated January 16, 2023 passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Sector 1, Mobile Squad, Deoria under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the mechanic, who had repaired the particular vehicle. Furthermore, the movement of the goods have been traced by way of the 'fast tag' chart. He further submits that none of these documents were considered by the authorities. He further relies upon the judgments in M/s Pepsico India Holdings Limited Lucknow v. Commissioner of Trade Tax reported in 2003 U.P.T.C. 856 and Jain Shudh Vanaspati Lim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....us submitted that the penalty was in order. 4. This Court in M/s Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No.1400 of 2019 decided on January 2, 2024) and M/s Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No.146 of 2023 decided on January 25, 2024) held that mens rea to evade tax is essential for imposition of penalty. The factual aspect in the present case did not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tention whatsoever on behalf of the petitioner to evade tax. Indubitably, there is a technical violation that has been committed by the petitioner. However, the authorities have not been able to indicate in any manner that the E-Way Bill had been used repeatedly nor have they made out any case with regard to an intention to evade tax by the petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that s....