LAW WINDOW
An Initiative by: Adv. Minakshi Jain
([email protected])
CASE No. 12 dated 30.08.2024
Particulars Details
Name of Petitioner M/S Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd.
Name of Respondent State of U.P. and others
Case No. Writ Tax No. - 141 of 2023
High Court Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgement 05.02.2024
Decision allowed
Topic: Quashing of Penalty Order Under Section 129(3) of the Uttar
Pradesh GST Act, 2017 Due to Lack of Intent to Evade Tax
Fact of the case:
This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The
petitioner challenges the penalty order dated January 16, 2023, issued by the
Assistant Commissioner of the State Tax Department, Deoria, and the appellate
order dated January 30, 2023, by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2
(Appeal)-I, State Tax, Judicial Division, Gorakhpur, under Section 129(3) of the
Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The vehicle in question was carrying goods with two e-Invoices and two E-Way
Bills, and the goods matched the descriptions in these documents. The only
discrepancy was that one E-Way Bill had expired.
The petitioner argued there was no intent to evade tax, and the vehicle's
breakdown, which delayed the journey, was evidenced by a mechanic's letter
and a 'fast tag' chart showing movement. The petitioner relied on past
judgments to argue that a penalty cannot be imposed solely for missing or
expired documents.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Additional Chief Standing Counsel argued that an E-Way Bill is a necessary
document, and the expired E-Way Bill did not meet the legal requirements.
The authorities had considered the petitioner’s arguments, noting that the E-
Way Bill had expired ten days before the goods were detained, and no fresh E-
Way Bill was issued despite the petitioner being aware of the expiry.
Court’s findings and decision:
The Court noted that the intent to evade tax (mens rea) is essential for imposing
a penalty, as seen in prior cases such as M/s Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics and
M/s Falguni Steels. The Court found no evidence of intent to evade tax in this
case. The only issue was a technical violation of the expired E-Way Bill.
The authorities failed to prove any repeated misuse of the E-Way Bill or any
deliberate intent to evade tax. Therefore, the penalty under Section 129(3) of
the Act was deemed unjustified.
The Court quashed the penalty orders dated January 16, 2023, and January 30,
2023. The respondents were directed to refund the amount of tax and penalty
deposited by the petitioner within four weeks. The writ petition was allowed,
with no order as to costs.
Regards,
Minakshi Jain, Advocate
Author and founder of Law Window
