TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1073
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Facts as narrated in the writ petition are as follows :- 3. Petitioner is a company, engaged in manufacturing Artist Brush and its materials, for which Petitioner is duly registered under the GST regime with GSTN No.09AAACI2206F1Z2. Petitioner is having its manufacturing unit established in Noida Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as 'SEZ'). In normal course of business, petitioner sold 102 boxes of Artist Brushes valuing Rs. 16,86,696.68/- to one M/s Pidilite Industries Ltd., Delhi (GSTIN No.07AAACP4156B1ZU) vide Tax Invoice No.18- 19/CEN/23 dated 14.6.2018, after charging Integrated Good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ected driver to take the vehicle to Commercial Tax Office, Mohan Nagar for physical verification of goods. Even though the goods were being transported on the strength of valid and genuine documents, specified under Rule 138A, then also Respondent No.3 passed detention order detaining the goods on the ground that the goods were being transported on a vehicle different from that declared on e-way bill. Contentions of the Petitioner 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the goods were accompanied by the tax invoice, packing list, bill of entry for home consumption and the e-way bill. He submitted that the only mistake in all these documents was that the truck number written in the e-way bill was incorrect. He s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the judgement passed in Falguni Steels Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2024) 15 Centax 67 (All.) to buttress his argument that imposition of penalty is invalid in cases when there is no mens-rea for evasion of tax. Contentions of the Respondents 5. Per contra, Mr. Pandey, counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submitted that in the present case the mistake by the petitioner cannot be seen as a clerical error as the truck number itself is different. He further submitted that since the distance between NOIDA to Madoli, Delhi is only 100 kilometers, there is always chance of the e-way bill being used on several occasions resulting in evasion of tax. Counsel further distinguished the judgement passed in Falguni Steels (Supra) by saying tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as the only error found by the department was that the vehicle number was incorrect. Apart from this one error in the e-way bill, nothing has been shown by the department to justify the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. The impugned order also failed to take into account the document produced by the petitioner of the transporter wherein the explanation was given with regard to the reason for the mistake of the vehicle number in the e-way bill. 7. One may reiterate the principles laid down in the judgment of Falguni Steels (Supra) with regard to imposition of penalty. Relevant paragraph nos.19 and 20 are delineated below :- "19. Mere technical errors, without having any potential financial implications, should not b....