Penalty Can’t Be Imposed If There Was No Intention to Evade Tax By Not Filling Up Part B of E-Way Bill | HC

Case Details: Roli Enterprises v. State of U.P. - [2024] 158 taxmann.com 468 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

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

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was aggrieved by an passed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act, 2017 levying penalty upon the petitioner and the subsequent appellate order dismissing the appeal. It filed writ petition against the demand.

The only controversy involved in the present petition was with regard to non-filling up of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill. The department contended that the vehicle No. in Part-B of e-way bill was not mentioned and the invoice itself contained the details of the truck.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that in the instant case, the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. The facts were quite similar to the facts in the case of M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2018) 17 GSTL 191 (All) where it was held that there would be no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act if error committed was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Therefore, it was held that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax 2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 191/[2022] 144 taxmann.com 155 (Allahabad) (para 7) followed.