Case Law Details
Patil Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction: In a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Patil Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P., the court addressed the issue of penalty imposition for the non-filing of Part-B of the E-Way Bill without any intention to evade tax. This article delves into the details of the judgment and its implications.
Detailed Analysis: The petitioner in this case challenged an order passed by the authorities imposing a penalty for the non-filing of Part-B of the E-Way Bill. The basis of the penalty imposition was the failure to fill up Part-B of the E-Way Bill.
However, the Allahabad High Court, in a previous judgment in the case of M/s Roli Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others, held that the non-filing of Part-B of the E-Way Bill, without any proof of intention to evade tax, does not warrant the imposition of a penalty. The court emphasized that if the error was of a technical nature and there was no intention to evade tax, then penalty imposition under Section 129(3) of the Act is not justified.
Applying the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgment, the court in the present case found that the facts were similar, and there was no evidence of the petitioner intending to evade tax. The invoice itself contained the details of the vehicle, indicating a technical error rather than deliberate evasion. Therefore, the court quashed the orders imposing the penalty and allowed the writ petition.
Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Patil Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. clarifies that non-filing of Part-B of the E-Way Bill, without any intention to evade tax, does not attract penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. This judgment provides relief to taxpayers facing penalties for technical errors in E-Way Bill compliance, highlighting the importance of proving intent in penalty imposition cases.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today be kept on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
3. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated October 6, 2023 passed in appeal. The original order imposing the penalty was passed on December 20, 2022.
4. The basis of the original order and the order passed in appeal for imposing penalty was that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up.
5. This Court by judgment and order dated January 16, 2024 passed in Writ-Tax 937 of 2022 (M/s Roli Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others) has held that non filling of Part-B of the e-way bill, without any proof of intention to evade tax, would not lead to imposition of penalty.
6. In the present case, the facts are similar to one in M/s Roli Enterprises’ 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 vehicle 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.
7. In light of the above, the orders dated December 20, 2022 and October 6, 2023 are quashed and set-aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential reliefs to follow.
Author Bio
