TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in M/S CITYKART RETAIL PVT. LTD. THRU. AUTHORIZD REPRESENTATIVE VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX U.P. GOMTI NAGAR LKO. AND ANR. [ 2022 (9) TMI 374 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and there are no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter, as the invoice itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by an order dated December 22, 2021 passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) levying penalty upon the petitioner and the subsequent appellate order dated January 20, 2022 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the only controversy involved in the present petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntion to evade tax cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has relied upon the order passed by the appellate authority to show that part 'B' of the e-Way Bill was not filled up. 6. One may look into the judgment passed in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) and lay reliance on two paragraphs that are qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicle in which the goods were being transported on a Delhi number, the said issue being decided in the judgment dated 13.04.2018 in the case of VSL Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) covers the issue raised in the present case also, as such, for the reasoning recorded above, the impugned order dated 18.04.2018 and the appellate order dated 14.05.2019 are set aside. 7. In the present case, the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
