No Penalty Shall Be Levied Since Department Has Not Been Able to Indicate Any Intention of Petitioner to Evade Tax | HC

Case Details: Ms. Varun Beverages Ltd. v. State of UP - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 122 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
  • Shubham Agrawal for the Petitioner.
  • C.S.C. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the petitioner challenged order of penalty passed under Section 129(3) and the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that invoices contained the vehicle number in which the goods were being transported and only part B of the e-way bill could not be generated. It was also contended that the department had not been able to indicate any intention of the petitioner to evade tax.

High Court Held

The Honorable high Court noted that the petitioner had generated e-way bill and the invoice contained all the necessary details but it didn’t fill out Part B of the e-way bill. Furthermore, in the present case, this was not a sale that was being made to third party, but the goods were transported from one branch of the petitioner to another branch.

The Court also relied on the decision of M/S Roli Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein it was held that non filling up of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill by itself without any intention to evade tax would not lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3). Therefore, the Court held that the defect was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax, accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was unsustainable.