UPGST | Invoice Contains Vehicle Details, Error In Not Filling Part-B Of E-Way Bill Technical: Allahabad High Court Quashes Penalty Order
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the invoice accompanying the goods contains all the details of the vehicle then not filing of Part-B of the e-way bill is a technical error without any intention to evade tax. The court quashed the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Petitioner approached the High Court against the order under Section 129(3) of...
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the invoice accompanying the goods contains all the details of the vehicle then not filing of Part-B of the e-way bill is a technical error without any intention to evade tax. The court quashed the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner approached the High Court against the order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act imposing penalty on grounds of missing details in Part-B of the e-way bill accompanying the goods. The appeal against the penalty order was also dismissed.
At the time of interception, goods of the petitioner were accompanied by bilty which contained the details of the truck in which the goods were being transported. There was no difference in the quantity or quality of goods being carried and the Department had not indicated any intention to evade tax on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another to argue that mere on filing of Part-B of the e-way bill cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the UP GST without any intention to evade tax.
Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another, Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held
“In the present case, the facts are quite similar to one in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) and I see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter, as the invoice itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Once this fact has been substantiated, there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.”
Accordingly, the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act was quashed.
Case Title: M/S Roli Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31 [WRIT TAX No. - 937 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 31
Counsel for Petitioner: Shubham Agrawal
Counsel for Respondent : Rishi Kumar