TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 613
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r dated 25.02.2021 passed by respondent no.1-Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)- Vth, Commercial Tax, Kanpur in Appeal No. GST-35/2022 for Assessment Year 2019-20 under the provisions of Section 129 (3) of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has received an order for supply of M.S. Bar from M/s. Shri Radhey Enterprises, Ghaziabad. After receipt of the said order, the petitioner placed an order to the M/s. Trimbakeswar Steels for supply of M.S. Bar and directed the supplier i.e. M/s. Trimbakeswar Steels to send the goods directly to M/s Shri Radhey Enterprises. 5. He further submits that both the purchaser and the seller have duly been granted GSTIN while the goods in tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons in question are bogus as the dates on E-way Bill and Tax Invoice are different. Further, the bona-fide of selling dealer was doubted by the Mobile Squad on inspection. He prays for dismissal of the present writ petition. 8. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the records, it transpires that there is only a mistake of mentioning the date on E-way Bill and Tax Invoice, which is a bona-fide typographical error on the part of person who generated the same, as such, it's a minor error, therefore it cannot be held that there was mens rea of evading tax, which is essential for imposing penalty. 9. This Court in the case of M/S Cavendish Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Writ Tax No. 697 of 2020), specifically in par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... I am of the view that the finding of the authorities with regard to intention to evade tax is not supported by the factual matrix of the case, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated February 22, 2020 and March 19, 2020 are quashed and set aside." 10. In view of the above referred judgment, the ground of mentioning wrong date in the E-way Bill cannot be drawn against the petitioner. Further, the material has been brought on record as Annexure No.10 to the present writ petition, that selling dealer is having active GSTIN and the said fact has not been disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Furthermore, merely because Trimbakeswar Steels i.e. the selling dealer has shown the office in some flat, will not entitle the respon....