Back
AJAY BHANOT
Hemant Taneja – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.2023 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad-VII, Ghaziabad in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,83,442/-. The order of the penalty was carried in appeal by the petitioner.
3. The appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad by the impugned order dated 9.5.2023 upheld the findings of the authority of first instance and confirmed the penalty so imposed upon the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3/Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-7, Ghaziabad and the order dated 4.1.2023, the petitioner has assailed the same in the writ petition.
5. The petitioner is a proprietor running under the name and style of 'M/s. J.S. Enterprises' in trading of taxable goods falling under Chapter-74 of the Goods and Service Tariff Act.
6. The petitioner is duly registered as a trader under the
The court established that valid digital documentation suffices for compliance under the GST Act, and failure to verify such documents by authorities cannot justify a penalty.
The absence of essential documents with intercepted goods raises a presumption of intention to evade tax, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee to rebut this presumption.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
Imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act should consider the intention to evade tax and the validity period of e-way bill, and should take into account the peculiar facts of the case.
E-way bill is mandatory for transporting goods; failure to carry it raises a presumption of tax evasion, which must be rebutted by the transporter.
The court upheld the penalty imposed under the WBGST Act, ruling that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation during the transport of goods.
Minor procedural lapses in compliance with tax regulations should not attract severe penalties, especially when there is no intent to evade tax.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
