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.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.

2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained in view of the fact that no GST Tribunal has been constituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), State Tax, Mathura as well as the order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit - 4, Mathura under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and deals in production of polyester films, BOPP films, specialty coated films and metallized paper, etc. in India. On 14.05.2018, while the goods were transported from manufacturing unit of the petitioner at Agra to its unit at Kosi Kalan, Mathura, the vehicle was intercepted and detention order in Form GST MOV 06 under section 129(1) UPGST Act was passed on the ground that part - B of the e-way bill was not filled up. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on the same day, i.e., 14.05.2018, proposing to impose tax amounting to Rs. 1,82,000/- on the estimated value of Rs. 6,50,000/-, together with penalty of Rs. 1,82,000/-. The petitioner submitted its reply stating that non-filling up of Part B of e-way bill was a mistake on the part of the transporter and as soon as the petitioner realized the mistake, e-way bill was updated and the Part B was filled up. Thereafter, on 16.05.2018, the respondent no. 2 passed the penalty order under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act. Against the penalty order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 1, which also dismissed vide impugned order dated 23.02.2019 affirming the penalty order dated 16.05.2018. Hence, this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a registered dealer, is adhering to the provisions of GST in letter and spirit. In the normal course of business, the petitioner made a stock transfer from its Agra unit to its Kosi Kala unit at Mathura, which was accompanying with all proper documents, such as, stock transfer of challan, e-way bill, transporter bilty and no discrepancy was found in the said documents, except Part 'B' of e-way bill, which was required to be filled up by the transporter was not filled, but as soon as the said discrepancy came to the notice of the petitioner, the same was updated and filled up immediately and produced before the authority concerned, along with its reply. He further submits that in the goods in question, there is no liability of tax as the goods were being sent from the petitioner's one Unit to another. He further submits that there is no element of any evasion of tax. He further submits that the goods were in transit, which was accompanying with documents and there was a technical breach, after issuance of show cause notice, the same was rectified and therefore, the authority concerned ought to have released the goods without any demand/penalty. He further submits that specific ground was raised before the authorities concerned that the