9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed on January 10, 2018. 3. Mr. Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that during the relevant period there were successive changes in the notification and due to the said fact, the Division Bench of this Court in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018 NTN (68) 53 held as under: "50. It appears that legislative changes were made in such a quick succession that field authorities could not track themselves with such changes and, hence, adhered to compliance of provisions which stood already substituted by new provisions and earlier ones had become otiose. Insistence upon petitioners, at the tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 52. Counsel for the petitioners contended that notification dated September 20, 2017 having been rescinded subsequently will not result in revival of earlier provision but the submission, in our view, does not arise at all in view of discussions made above, showing that rule 138 as substituted by U.P. GST (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2017 (Notification dated September 20, 2017), as a matter of fact, never became operative. The first amendment by substitution of rule 138 is by way of the U. P. GST (Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 2018 vide notification dated January 31, 2018 which came into force on February 1, 2018 and it continued up to March 31, 2018. Thereafter, it stands substituted by another rule 138 vide U. P. GST (Fourteenth Amendment) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct detained, after completion of the journey, from the premises of M/s. National Chemical, C-9, Foundry Nagar, Agra, the purchaser of the goods. 6. Upon perusal of the record, I find that neither in the show cause notice nor in the order under Section 129(3) there was any allegation that non downloading of E-way Bill-02 was done with intention to evade tax. In spite of the same, the respondent authorities have chosen to impose maximum penalty whereas the law provides for lesser penalty under Section 122 of the Act. 7. The issue in the present petition is covered by the above two Division Bench judgments of this Court and I do not find any case made out with regard to evasion of tax. 8. In light of the same, the impugned order dated Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
