Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 505 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTPenalty order u/s 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by not treating the petitioner to be the owner of goods - intent to evade present or not - HELD THAT:- The E-way Bills being the documents of title to the goods were accompanying the goods hence, the conclusion of the revenue that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods is patently erroneous. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were liable to be initiated under Section 129(1)(a) and not 129(1)(b) as has been done in the present case. Strong reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in M/s Sahil Traders Vs. State of U.P. [2023 (6) TMI 360 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] which applies squarely to the case at hand, where reliance placed in coordinate bench in M/s Margo Brush India [2023 (1) TMI 1237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act was not called for and could not be justified as Section 129(1)(a) of the Act provides that where owner of the goods comes forward for payment of penalty, the amount has to be two hundred per cent of the tax payable, whereas, in the case in hand, the penalty has been levied to the tune of hundred per cent of the value of the goods. The impugned penalty order dated 5.8.2023 passed in Form MOV-09 under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 set aside - petition allowed.
|