Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
New India Traders – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Shri Pranjal Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
2. The instant Writ Petitions are 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. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are similar, therefore, the same are being decided by the common order. Writ Tax 527 of 2023 is taken as a leading case for deciding the controversy involved in both the writ petitions.
Writ Tax 527 of 2023
4. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad - 3, SGST, Bareilly as well as the order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal), Bareilly.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Proprietorship concern. In the normal course of its business, on 04.08.2022, the goods were loaded from the business premises of the petitioner for M/s Wave Industries Private Li
Failure to provide notice for adverse inferences violates principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of penalty and order.
Production of rectifying documents before detention of goods negates grounds for penalty under GST rules, reaffirming procedural fairness.
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.
Discrepancies in documentation do not imply tax evasion when proper documentation is present during stock transfers.
Authorities must substantiate claims of tax evasion in goods seizure cases; mere suspicions are insufficient without concrete evidence.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
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 ....
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
