Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Gurunanak Arecanut Traders – Appellant
Versus
Commercial Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sold arecanut (Para 3) |
| 2. detention order without hearing (Para 4) |
| 3. misclassification of goods (Para 5) |
| 4. intention to evade tax (Para 6) |
| 5. evidence of tax evasion (Para 7) |
| 6. non-compliance with e-way bill (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. e-way bill mandatory (Para 11 , 18) |
| 8. presumption of tax evasion (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 9. writ petition dismissed (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been made to order dated 16.06.2022 passed by Commercial Tax Officer, Sector-3 (Mobile Squad), Etah exercising power under Section 129(1) of the State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and order dated 24.06.2022 under Section 129(3) and also quashing has been sought for the demand of tax and penalty of Rs.90,62,400/- as well as appellate order dated 18.08.2022.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered dealer under State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called as “the Act of 2017”). He has sold 400 bags of Arecanut vide tax invoice dated 09.06.2022 to M/s. Jagdamba Ent
E-way bill is mandatory for transporting goods; failure to carry it raises a presumption of tax evasion, which must be rebutted by the transporter.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
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.
The requirement for a complete e-way bill for the transportation of goods is mandatory, and failure to comply raises a presumption of tax evasion.
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.
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
