Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Prestress Steel LLP – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Uttarakhand State GST – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
1. Since common questions of law are involved in both these petitions, they are decided by this common judgment.
2. The challenge in these petitions is made to the orders dated 09.06.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3, Assistant Commissioner State Tax/Tax Officer, Mobile Squad, Rudrapur, under Section 20 read with 129 of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (“the Act”).
3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows. The petitioner is into the business of manufacturing of PC wires-Strand ACSR Core Wire and Galvanized steel wire. He purchases the raw material from Steel Authority of India Limited, Kolkata (“SAIL”). The petitioner placed an order with SAIL, the goods were transported from West Bengal to Kanpur through railway in the wagon against invoices and other documents required under the Act. The wagon was unloaded and taken into custody by the petitioner for further transportation of good to Bazpur. For that purpose two vehicles were deployed bearing registration nos. HP 939081 and UP 25 BT 6528 (“the vehicles”). Accordingly, e-way bill was also generated and goods were moved towards its destination on 0
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between non-compliance and intentional evasion of tax, and the applicability of penalty provisions based on the facts and circumsta....
Penalties under Section 129 of the CGST Act must not apply to minor infractions without intent to evade tax, emphasizing moderation and rectifiability of documentation errors.
Penalties under GST Act require evidence of intent to evade tax; mere technical omissions do not warrant penalties when tax has been duly paid.
The intention to evade tax, non-taxable nature of goods movement, and the relevance of valid documents are crucial in imposing penalties under Section 129 of the Act.
Penalties for minor breaches under the CGST/SGST Acts should be proportionate and not severe unless there is intent to evade tax.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for generating e-way bills before the commencement of transportation of goods, the burden of proof on the taxpayer to establish lac....
Minor discrepancies in transport documentation do not warrant penalties under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with general penalties appropriately applied instead under Section....
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
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
