Levy of Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax ...

Ruling: No Penalties for Minor E-Way Bill Typos Under CGST Act; Refund Ordered for Tax and Penalty Deposits.

April 29, 2024

Case Laws GST HC

Levy of Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Errors in e-way bills - The Court emphasized that minor typographical errors in e-way bills, without additional evidence indicating an intention to evade tax, should not lead to penalty imposition. It highlighted a precedent where a similar typographical error was deemed insignificant, emphasizing that such errors do not necessarily imply tax evasion. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the refund of the deposited tax and penalty amount.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Levy of Penalty u/s 129(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax ...

Ruling: No Penalties for Minor E-Way Bill Typos Under CGST Act; Refund Ordered for Tax and Penalty Deposits.

April 29, 2024

Case Laws GST HC

You may also like:

Levy of penalties u/ss 122 and 129 of CGST/SGST Acts - expiry of e-way bill - mens rea in penalty imposition. Technically, violation of law by petitioner in transporting...

Levy of penalty u/s 129(5) of GST Act for discrepancy between PIN code of petitioner in Tax Invoices and E-Way Bill. Court held minor discrepancy in PIN code in GST...

Levy of penalty - Compliance with the E-Way bill as required under the provisions of the CGST/UPGST Act and related rule or not - presumption of tax evasion in its...

Challenge to penalty order u/s 129(1) of CGST Act for non-generation of Part-B of E-way bill. Petitioner accepted notice and paid Rs. 11,08,150 penalty voluntarily...

Levy of penalty - goods were unloaded at a place that was not registered in the registration certificate - unloading goods at a location not specified in the e-way bill...

The High Court quashed penalty u/s E-Way Bill violation, classifying goods as ODC due to speed without intent to evade tax. Relying on precedent, mens rea is essential...

Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Contravention of Rule 8(3A) - penalty under Rule 25 is not permissible, but penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed - AT

Levy of penalty - Applicability of the substituted rule for imposition of penalty - The Supreme Court sided with the appellant, holding that the substituted rule from...

Pre-deposit of the penalty amount would be required only when the order of the penalty alone is under challenge. But when there is composite order namely assessment...

Benefit of reduced penalty - penalty not deposited - get the benefit of reduced penalty of 25% of the service tax (ST) u/s 78(1) of the FA, 1994, assessee required to...

Penalty order - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - intent to evade tax - The High court, referencing a previous judgment, ruled that such technical errors, in...

Offence u/s 276(C)(2) and 277 - Allegation of willful tax evasion and non-payment of admitted tax - compounding application. The petitioner submitted income tax return...

The key points are regarding the penalty imposed u/s 271D read with Section 269SS, and the issue of whether the penalty orders were time-barred. The Assessing Officer...

Finance Bill, 2015 - service tax - Substantial overall in levy of penalty u/s 76 and 78

Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) imposed on minor - The tribunal upheld the appellant's argument regarding being a minor, stating that penalty proceedings initiated against a minor...

Quick Updates: