9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order imposing penalty dated August 8, 2018 passed by respondent No.4/Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad Unit-4, Pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Tax No.763 of 2018 decided on May 9, 2018) to argue that when the documents are produced after the interception and before the detention order is passed, no penalty is leviable under Section 129(3) of the Act. He further relies upon paragraph Nos.19 and 20 of the Single Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.146 of 2023 decided on January 25, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case, the facts are undisputed that neither invoice nor E-Way Bill were accompanying the goods. Such a contravention to the Rules cannot be treated to be a mere technical or typographical mistake, and accordingly, in such cases, the burden of proof for establishing that there was no mens rea for evasion of taxes shifts to the assessee. 7. This Court in umpteen cases where penalties were b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to persons who intend to avoid paying taxes owed to the Government. It is clear that if the goods had not been intercepted, the Government would have been out of its pocket with respect to the GST payable on the said goods.
9. In light of the above findings, no interference is required with regard to the impugned orders. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
