Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
Millennium Impex Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-I State Tax, Noida – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned A.C.S.C. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Tiwari for respondent no. 3.
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 this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.8.2020 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST-113/19 A.Y. 2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
4. Brief facts of the case as stated, are that the petitioner being a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act having GSTIN No. 07AACCM3279J1Z8 as well as duly certified by ISO 9001:2015. The petitioner is a verified seller of supreme quality of metal seated zero leakage Ball Valves and purchaser of Ball Valve, Diaphragm Valves in bulk. In the normal course of business, the petitioner has made outward supply of Rotor Assembly Elmo and Complete Assy-CL 3001 to NTPC Ltd, Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Station, P.O. Jyotinagar, Distt. Pe
Procedural compliance in tax documentation is mandatory; failure to fill an e-way bill's section warrants penalty under tax law.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
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 is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
Minor procedural lapses in compliance with tax regulations should not attract severe penalties, especially when there is no intent to evade tax.
The court upheld the penalty imposed under the WBGST Act, ruling that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation during the transport of goods.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the genuineness of documents and actual movement of goods; failure to do so justifies seizure under the IGST/CGST Act.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
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
