Back
ALOK MATHUR
Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Mathur, J.
Heard Shri. Aditya Pande, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 3.11.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), Nyayik Sambhag (Legal Division)- Fourth, Commercial Tax, Lucknow thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirming the order of the adjudicating authorities dated 09.08.2018 thereby in exercise of power under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. GST Act imposing the penalty for an amount of Rs. 20,241/- as well as tax of Rs. 20,241/-.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act and is in business of manufacturing and sale of FMCG goods. It has Head Office in Bombay and for the State of U.P., the office is situated at 120/143 Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur and also has its branch office at Ghaziabad, Varanasi and Lucknow. It is stated that on 06.08.2018 the goods were being transported through Trans- express Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. from Patna Branch (Bihar) to Lucknow Branch (Uttar Pradesh) when they
Discrepancies in documentation do not imply tax evasion when proper documentation is present during stock transfers.
For proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act, there must be intent to evade tax established; a mere technical breach does not warrant penalties.
Penalties should be reserved for cases where there is a demonstrated actual intent to evade tax, and technical errors without potential financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of ....
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Minor clerical errors in e-way bills do not attract penalties under GST if there is no intent to evade tax.
Failure to provide notice for adverse inferences violates principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of penalty and order.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
Production of rectifying documents before detention of goods negates grounds for penalty under GST rules, reaffirming procedural fairness.
Intent to evade tax is a necessary condition for proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act; absence of such intent invalidates penalties imposed under these sections.
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
