Case Law Details
Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction: The Allahabad High Court, in a recent judgment, addressed the issue of imposing penalties for non-filing of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner, Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt. Ltd., challenged the penalty imposed on them and the subsequent dismissal of their appeal.
Detailed Analysis: The court examined the facts, highlighting that the invoice included details of the truck transporting the goods, and there was no discrepancy between the goods and the invoice. The Department failed to establish any intent by the petitioner to evade tax. The petitioner’s counsel cited relevant judgments to argue that non-filing of Part ‘B’ without intent to evade tax should not lead to penalties.
Referring to the judgment in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.’s case, the court emphasized that a technical error without an intention to evade tax should not warrant penalties. The court found similarities with the present case, where the invoice contained truck details, and the error was technical in nature. Consequently, the court quashed the orders dated May 24, 2022, and October 15, 2022, and allowed the petition. The respondents were directed to return the security to the petitioner.
Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court’s decision sets a precedent that non-filing of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill, in the absence of an intention to evade tax and with technical errors, should not attract penalties. This judgment provides relief to businesses facing similar issues and reinforces the importance of considering intent in tax-related matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated May 24, 2022 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 October 15, 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 is with regard to non filling up of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill. The undisputed facts are that firstly the invoice in fact had the details of the truck that was carrying the goods; secondly, the goods were not in variance with the invoice; and thirdly, the Department has not been able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax.
4. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of this Court in VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 NTN [Vol.67]-1 and M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. [Vol.113]-173 to buttress her argument that non filling up of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill by itself without any intention to evade tax cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.
5. Sri Rishi Kumar, 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 quoted below:
“7. In view of the contentions of the parties and the material placed on record, it is clear that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner leading to seizure of the goods was that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up. There is no allegation that the goods being transported were being transported without payment of tax. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not filling the Part-B of e-way bill, is clearly supported by the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance wherein the problem arising in filling the part-B of e-way bill was noticed and advisories were issued.
8. In the present case, prima-facie no intent to evade the duty can be ascertained, only on the allegation that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled, more so, in view of the fact that the 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 are quite similar to one in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra) and I see 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 without any intention to evade tax. Once this fact has been substantiated, there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.
8. In light of the above, the orders dated May 24, 2022 and October 15, 2022 are quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Consequential reliefs to follow. The respondents are directed to return the security to the petitioner within six weeks from date.
Author Bio
