Back
PIYUSH AGRAWAL
J. K. Cement Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the petitioner's case. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments regarding e-way bill. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's argument supporting the impugned order. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's observations about the correct interpretation of the law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's final decision and order. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Mr. Shubham Agarwal for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned A.C.S.C. for the respondent authority.
2. The present writ petition is being entertained by this Court at this stage as no G.S.T. Tribunal has been formed in the State of U.P.
3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 8.10.2021 and 12.11.2021 passed by respondent nos. 4 and 3 respectively.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being registered company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cements, wall putty, adhesives etc. The petitioner is duly registered under the GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT and paying the taxes as and when its due. In the normal course of business, the petitioner has sent five consignments of J.K. Cement White MaxX Premium White Portland C
The requirement of e-way bills under the U.P. GST Act was unenforceable between 01.02.2018 and 31.03.2018, nullifying associated penalties.
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.
Detention and seizure of goods in transit under GST requires clear evidence of contravention; mere discrepancies in documentation cannot justify such actions.
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.
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.
Production of rectifying documents before detention of goods negates grounds for penalty under GST rules, reaffirming procedural fairness.
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
