Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Private Limited Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The writ petition challenged an order dated 28.04.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-5 (Mobile Squad-5), Gautam Buddha Nagar, imposing a penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The penalty was based on the finding that the goods being transported were accompanied by an e-way bill in which Part-B had not been filled, constituting a violation of Rule 138 of the GST Rules. The petitioner submitted that the omission was merely a technical lapse and that there was no intention to evade tax, noting that no such finding had been recorded by the authority. Reliance was placed on prior decisions of the High Court, including the judgment in Precision Tools India, which held that penalty under Section 129 cannot be imposed solely for non-filling of Part-B unless an attempt to evade tax is established. The respondents argued that the missing Part-B was undisputed and that intention to evade tax was irrelevant, although they acknowledged the Court’s consistent view in earlier cases. Upon examining the record, the Court observed that the impugned order mentioned only the violation of Rule 138 and contained no finding regarding tax evasion. Consistent with its earlier rulings, the Court held that in the absence of a recorded attempt to evade tax, non-filling of Part-B alone does not attract penalty under Section 129. The writ petition was allowed, the penalty order was set aside, and the bank guarantee furnished under protest was directed to be returned to the petitioner within two weeks.
