Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
B M Computers – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner Commercial Taxes – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner is a registered dealer under gst, challenging penalty orders. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues that penalty was unjust due to human error in e-way bill. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court emphasizes mandatory complete e-way bill for goods movement. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. writ petition dismissed; no grounds for interference found. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. Heard 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 06.03.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad- 5, Sector-5, Unit-1, Noida, under Section 129(3) of the U.P. State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 imposing penalty and appellate order dated 30.05.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-3, State Tax, Noida, confirming the order of penalty passed by Assessing Authority.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST regime having GSTN No. 09AEWPA1632E1ZN. It is engaged in the sale and purchase of computer and other hardware
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.
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.
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.
A technical error in documentation without intent to evade tax does not justify penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act.
The imposition of penalties under tax laws requires clear evidence of intent to evade tax, and procedural fairness must be upheld in enforcement actions.
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 ....
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.
Non-filling of Part 'B' of e-Way Bill does not warrant penalty under Section 129(3) without evidence of intent to evade tax.
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
