HC Quashes Penalty As Error of Non-Filling of Part B of E-Way Bill Was of Technical Nature Without Any Intention to Evade Tax

Case Details: Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner Commercial Tax - [2024] 158 taxmann.com 609 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
  • Pooja Talwar for the Petitioner.
  • C.S.C. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, levying penalty upon the petitioner and the subsequent appellate order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. The controversy involved in the present petition is with regard to non-filling up of Part ‘B’ of the E-way Bill. The facts are that firstly the invoice, in fact, had the details of the truck carrying the goods; secondly, the goods were not in variance with the invoice; and thirdly, the Department has not been able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the facts of the case are quite similar to the ones in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.’s case [2022] 144 taxmann.com 155 (Allahabad) and it sees no reason why it should take a different view of the matter. This is because 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.