Case Law Details
Vacmet India Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court held that imposition of penalty under section 129(3) of the UPGST untenable as no observation has been made with regard to intent to evade payment of tax.
Facts- The petitioner deals in production of polyester films, BOPP films, specialty coated films and metallized paper, etc. in India. On 14.05.2018, while the goods were transported from manufacturing unit of the petitioner at Agra to its unit at Kosi Kalan, Mathura, the vehicle was intercepted and detention order in Form GST MOV 06 u/s. 129(1) UPGST Act was passed on the ground that part – B of the e-way bill was not filled up.
Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on the same day, i.e., 14.05.2018, proposing to impose tax amounting to Rs. 1,82,000/- on the estimated value of Rs. 6,50,000/-, together with penalty of Rs. 1,82,000/-. On 16.05.2018, the respondent passed the penalty order u/s. 129(3) of the UPGST Act. Against the penalty order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 1, which also dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
Conclusion- Held that since the goods in question were stock transfer from one Unit to another within the State of Uttar Pradesh (Agra to Mathura) and in absence of any provision being pointed out by the learned ACSC or any authority below that the goods (stock transfer) in transit were liable for payment of tax, no evasion of tax could be attributed to the goods in question. Once there was no intention to evade payment of tax, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated and are liable to be set aside.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
