Nanhey Mal Munna Lal Vs Additional Commissioner And Another (Allahabad High Court)
In the case of Nanhey Mal Munna Lal vs. Additional Commissioner, the Allahabad High Court reviewed a penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner challenged an order by the Additional Commissioner that seized goods due to a discrepancy between the dates on the tax invoice and e-way bill. The petitioner argued that the date mismatch was a minor typographical error and not indicative of tax evasion. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the state supported the impugned order, citing potential bogus transactions. However, the court determined that the date error did not suggest any intent to evade tax, as both the buyer and seller were duly registered and active. Citing precedents, including the M/S Cavendish Industries Ltd. case, the court concluded that the penalty for such a minor error was unjustified. The court quashed the penalty and ordered the refund of any amounts deposited by the petitioner, emphasizing that surmises and conjectures should not form the basis for tax penalties. The writ petition was thus allowed, and the penalty order was set aside.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
