PANKAJ BHATIA
S/S S. K. Trading Co – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade 2(Appeal ) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the allegations that petitioner no.1 placed an order for supply of mixed ready-made garments, which were being transported by petitioner no.2. It is stated that on 13.09.2022 the goods while in transit were intercepted and a physical verification report was prepared on 17.09.2022 in form GST MOV-04 and no discrepancy was found in the quantity of the goods in question.
3. It is stated that on 21.09.2022, a detention order was passed detaining the goods in question mainly on the ground that the goods were without E-Way bill. It is argued that although under Section 129 (3) of U.P. GST Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), there is a prescription for issuance of a notice in Form GST MOV-07, however, the notice was not issued in the format as prescribed but was issued by an authority whose name is not even specified as the order itself recorded that the same was issued for the authority and not by the authority.
4. It is stated that in reply to the letter issued to the petitioner, the petitioner filed a det
The absence of requisite documentation, such as the E-way Bill, does not justify detention and consequent penalties when prior judicial authority negates such action.
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.
Intention to evade tax must be established for imposing a penalty under GST Act; misclassification of penalty type leads to legal error.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.