Follow Us :

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rs Industrial Solutions Vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 684 of 2024
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/05/2024
Related Assessment Year :

Rs Industrial Solutions Vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another (Allahabad High Court)

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of imposing penalties for the non-filing of Part-B of the E-Way Bill without proof of intention to evade tax. The case, Rs Industrial Solutions vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2, sheds light on the interpretation of tax laws and penalties under the Act.

The case before the Allahabad High Court involved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged the order passed in appeal, which imposed a penalty for the non-filing of Part-B of the E-Way Bill. The original order imposing the penalty was passed on May 22, 2023, while the appeal order was dated February 29, 2024.

The crux of the matter was whether the failure to fill Part-B of the E-Way Bill warranted the imposition of a penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner’s counsel argued that a similar issue had been addressed in a previous judgment dated January 16, 2024, in the case of M/s Roli Enterprises vs State of U.P. and others. In that judgment, it was held that the non-filing of Part-B of the E-Way Bill, without any proof of intention to evade tax, would not lead to the imposition of a penalty.

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents did not dispute this fact. The court, upon consideration of the facts and the precedent set by the previous judgment, found no reason to take a different view in the present case. The error in the E-Way Bill was deemed to be of a technical nature, and there was no evidence to suggest an intention to evade tax.

Therefore, the Allahabad High Court quashed and set aside the orders imposing penalties, allowing the writ petition filed by Rs Industrial Solutions. The court emphasized that penalties should be imposed only when there is clear evidence of intentional wrongdoing or evasion of tax. In this case, the error in filling Part-B of the E-Way Bill did not warrant such punitive action.

Conclusion: The judgment in the case of Rs Industrial Solutions vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 serves as an important precedent in interpreting tax laws related to E-Way Bills and penalties. It underscores the principle that penalties should not be imposed arbitrarily, especially in cases where there is no evidence of intentional tax evasion. The ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 129(3) of the Act and reaffirms the importance of considering the intent behind technical errors in tax compliance.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.2.2024 passed in appeal. The original order imposing the penalty was passed on 22.5.2023.

3. 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.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in hand has already been covered by the judgment and order dated January 16, 2024 passed in Writ-Tax No.937 of 2022 (M/s Roli Enterprises vs. State of U.P. and others) in which it 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.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel does not dispute the said fact and submits that this writ petition may be disposed of at the admission stage without calling counter affidavit.

6. In the present case, the facts are quite 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 22.5.2023 and 29.2.2024 are quashed and set-aside. The writ petition is allowed. Consequential reliefs to follow.

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
May 2024
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031