Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Sun Flag Iron And Steel Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. goods were accompanied by valid documents. (Para 4) |
| 2. petitioner contended that penalties imposed were unjustified. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. intent to evade tax is necessary for penalties. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. petition allowed; orders quashed. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Mr. Shubham Agarwal for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent-State.
2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained by this Court in view of the fact that G.S.T. Tribunal is not functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.
3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 9.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 4 and the order dated 17.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 3.
4. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a registered company having GST No. 27AACCS3376C1ZH and engaged in the business of manufacturing & sale of basic iron and steel etc. In the normal course of business the petitioner dispatched the consignment of 30 ton of non-alloy steel in rolled round to M/s
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
The expiration of an e-way bill during transit, without any intent to evade tax, does not justify severe penalties under the CGST Act; penalties must be proportionate to the offense committed.
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.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
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.
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
Procedural compliance in tax documentation is mandatory; failure to fill an e-way bill's section warrants penalty under tax law.
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
