Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (2) TMI 1073 - HC - GSTIssues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on discrepancies in the e-way bill and documents during the transportation of goods from a SEZ unit to a Domestic Traffic Area (DTA). Facts and Contentions: The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing Artist Brush and materials, sold goods to a buyer in Delhi from its SEZ unit in Noida. During transportation, the goods were detained by authorities due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number mentioned on the e-way bill. The petitioner argued that it was a clerical error caused by a change in the transporting vehicle. The respondent contended that such errors could lead to tax evasion. Analysis and Conclusion: Upon reviewing the documents, the court found that the goods were properly checked by customs, and all necessary duties and taxes were paid. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the department to show intention to evade tax in case of clerical errors. As the department failed to prove any intent to evade tax and did not discredit the payment proofs provided by the petitioner, the imposition of penalty was deemed unjustified. Referring to the principles laid down in a previous judgment, the court reiterated that penalties should be reserved for intentional tax evasion, not inadvertent errors. Judgment: The court quashed the orders imposing penalty and allowed the writ petition, directing the refund of any deposited amount by the petitioner within four weeks. The court emphasized the importance of establishing intent to evade tax before imposing penalties, ensuring a fair and just tax system.
|