Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
S. R. Sales – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
Heard Sri Devansh Misra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Union of India.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the penalty order dated 02.11.2018 passed under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called as "GST Act, 2017") and the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)- I, State Goods and Service Tax, Kanpur.
3. The case is brief, is that the petitioner who is the consignee of the goods was bringing the goods through the transporter from State of Karnataka to the State of U.P. The goods were carried by the transporter from Birur, Karnataka after the required documents were handed over and e-way bill which was generated on 10.10.2018 at 8:38 p.m. The goods were carried through Truck No. MH-40BG/6078. The goods reached Amrawati on 17.10.2018 and it was shifted to another truck being Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036 at 5:31 p.m. Thereafter, the goods were brought to Nagpur where the goods were transf
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such 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.
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 ....
Failure to provide notice for adverse inferences violates principles of natural justice, leading to quashing of penalty and order.
Discrepancies in documentation do not imply tax evasion when proper documentation is present during stock transfers.
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.
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
