TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 605
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Judicial Division 2nd State Tax, Moradabad/respondent No. 1. The said appeal was preferred against the penalty order dated May 21, 2019 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit - III, Moradabad/respondent No. 2. FACTS 2. Factual matrix leading to the instant petition is delineated below: a) The petitioner is a registered dealer, who deals in manufacturing, trading and exporting of handicraft iron, glass, wax, marble, tiles, wooden handicraft etc. b) On May 20, 2019, the goods in question were being transferred by the petitioner from Chandigarh to USA through Inland Container Depot (ICD), Moradabad vide Invoice No. MID/126. A truck bearing No. HR 38 P 8575 was assigned for the transportation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... h) Being aggrieved by the order dated January 4, 2020, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER 3. Sri Suyash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions: i. The petitioner had downloaded the E-Way Bill for the goods in question on May 21, 2019 at 08:38 am and the interception took place on the same day at 08:52 am which means the E-Way Bill was downloaded prior to the interception of the goods. ii. In the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, a time limit of 7 days was mentioned to submit the reply but without waiting for 7 days and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 ille....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 129(1) & 129(3) of the UPGST Act were just, proper and in accordance with the law. iv. The penalty imposed and the entire proceedings were in consonance with the Rules and Law, particularly highlighting the necessity of E-Way Bills during transportation. v. The appellate authority made a decision after due consideration of facts and materials, and thus upheld the penalty order. ANALYSSIS AND CONCLUSION 5. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. In the present case, the pivotal question pertains to the compliance of E-Way bill as requried under the provisions of the CGST/UPGST Act and related rules. The petitioner contends that compliance was timely achieve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of penalty. A typographical error in the e-way bill without any further material to substantiate the intention to evade tax should not and cannot lead to imposition of penalty. In the case of M/s. Varun Beverages Limited (supra) there was a typographical error in the e-way bill of 4 letters (HR - 73). In the present case, instead of '5332', '3552' was incorrectly entered into the e-way bill which clearly appears to be a typographical error. In certain cases where lapses by the dealers are major, it may be deemed that there is an intention to evade tax but not so in every case. Typically when the error is a minor error of the nature found in this particular case, I am of the view that imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act is wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The law laid down in Falguni Steels (supra) was also followed by this Court in case of M/s Globe Panel Industries India Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And Others (Writ Tax No. - 141 of 2023 decided on February 5, 2024). Relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted below: "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 indicate any intention whasoever to evade tax. Furthermore, the documents that have been relied upon by the....