Back
SHEKHAR B. SARAF
Riadi Steels Llp – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
Heard Sri. Aloke Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the GST council and Sri. Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order imposing penalty dated April 6, 2022 and the order in Appeal dated June 22, 2022.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the e-invoice and the e-way bill were accompanying the vehicle carrying the goods. He further submitted that the e-way bill had expired four days prior to the date of detention. Counsel has submitted that the explanation for the delay in travel of the vehicle has also been given. He submitted that during the course of movement, the engine of the vehicle in question got overheated, and therefore, the driver was driving the vehicle slowly and intermittently stopping the vehicle so that the engine did not get overheated. The GPS tracking system was also produced before the authorities that indicated that the vehicle was travelling as per the original route. In l
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.
Technical violations without intent to evade tax do not justify penalties under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act.
Imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act should consider the intention to evade tax and the validity period of e-way bill, and should take into account the peculiar facts of the case.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
The imposition of penalties for minor discrepancies in tax-related documents without intent to evade tax is not justified under the CGST/SGST Acts.
Mens rea is essential for imposing penalties under tax laws; technical faults without intent to evade tax should not attract 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 ....
A technical error in documentation without intent to evade tax does not justify penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act.
The expiration of an e-way bill during transit, without any intent to evade tax, does not justify severe penalties under the CGST Act; penalties must be proportionate to the offense committed.
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
