No penalty u/s 129(3) of UPGST Act for Non filling up vehicle number in Part ‘B’ of e-Way Bill without intention to evade tax.
In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Allahabad High Court has held that no penalty can be levied u/s 129(3) of UPGST Act for on filling up vehicle number in Part ‘B’ of e-Way Bill in absence of intention to evade tax
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4008 (2024) (05) HC
Important Case Laws relied upon:
VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and another reported 2018 NTN [Vol.67]-1
M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another 2023 U.P.T.C. [Vol.113]-173
In the instant case, the Petitioner assessee had filed a Writ Petition challenging the order passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act) levying penalty and the subsequent appellate order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.
The only controversy involved in the petition was with regard to non filling up of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill whereas undisputedly the invoice had all the details of the truck that was carrying the goods, the goods were not in variance with the invoice; and thirdly, the GST Department had not been able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax.
It is notable that the E-Way Bill, or GST EWB-01, is divided into two parts: Part A and Part B. Part A contains the products’ information, while Part B contains the vehicle’s identification number i.e. vehicle Number which the goods are transported.
The mobile squad of the UPGST Authorities intercepted the truck carrying goods of the Petitioner and found that the in Part B of e-way bill the vehicle number was not mentioned. The truck was seized and tax and penalty was imposed.
The Petitioner had relied upon two judgments of the High Court to buttress her argument that non filling up of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill by itself without any intention to evade tax cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that as relied upon by the Petitioner, it had previously held that when the only allegation levelled against the petitioner leading to seizure of the goods was that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up. There was no allegation that the goods being transported were being transported without payment of tax. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not filling the Part-B of e-way bill, was clearly supported by the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance wherein the problem arising in filling the part-B of e-way bill was noticed and advisories were issued.
In the said case, it was further observed that prima-facie no intent to evade the duty can be ascertained, only on the allegation that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled.
The Hon’ble High Court noted that in the present case, the facts are quite similar to one stated above and there was no reason why the 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.
The Hon’ble High Court further noted that the GST Department had not been able to indicate any mens rea on the part of the petitioner for evasion of tax. Such being the case, it was clear that penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders and set them aside. The petition was allowed. The GST Department was directed to return the security to the petitioner within six weeks.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- GST e-invoice-1 and e-invoice-2 Portals to be launched from 18.07.2024
- The Companies (Significant Beneficial Owners) Amendment Rules, 2024
- Clarification on GST rates & classification of goods as per GST Council 53rd meeting
- Clarifications on applicability of GST on certain services as per 53rd GST Council meeting
- Merely increasing/ reducing agriculture expenses/ income not result in taxable income
