Back
SHEKHAR B. SARAF
Abilities Pistons And Rings Ltd. , Ghaziabad – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), Commercial Tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
Heard Sri. Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri. Shiv Prakash Dubey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order levying penalty dated October 25, 2018 passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-I, Ghaziabad under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 27, 2020 passed by respondent No.1/Additional Commissioner Grade- 2 (Appeal), Judicial Division-I, Commercial Tax, Ghaziabad under Section 107 of the Act.
3. The factual matrix in this case is that the invoice and the E- Way Bill were accompanying the goods and the description of the goods matched with the invoice. Only Part B of the E-Way Bill was not filled up at the time of interception. However, Part B of the E-Way Bill was filled up by the petitioner immediately after the interception, that is, much before the order of detention was passed.
4. It is to be not
Mens rea is essential for imposing penalties under tax laws; technical faults without intent to evade tax should not attract penalties.
A technical error in documentation without intent to evade tax does not justify penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act.
A technical error in tax documentation does not justify penalty without evidence of intent to evade tax.
Non-filling of Part 'B' of e-Way Bill does not warrant penalty under Section 129(3) without evidence of intent to evade tax.
The imposition of tax penalties requires proof of mens rea; mere technical errors do not justify penalties.
A technical error in not filling Part 'B' of an e-Way Bill, without intent to evade tax, does not justify a penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act.
The absence of essential documents with intercepted goods raises a presumption of intention to evade tax, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee to rebut this presumption.
Non-filling of Part 'B' of e-Way Bill without intent to evade tax does not justify penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.
A technical error in the e-Way Bill without intent to evade tax does not justify a penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
A penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act requires proof of mens rea for tax evasion, which was absent in this case, leading to the quashing of the penalty orders.
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
