In the absence of intention to evade tax, penalty order under section 129(3) is liable to be quashed




Loading

In the absence of intention to evade tax, penalty order under section 129(3) is liable to be quashed

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court clarified the application of penalties under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 2017. Let’s dive into the details:

Let us have a short overview of the case:

Case Summary is as under:
Case Name : Prahlad Rai Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others (Writ Tax No. 587 of 2022)
Date of Judgment/Order : 16th May 2024
Issue : The petitioner faced a penalty under Section 129(3) due to an expired e-way bill.

Facts of the Case:
– The petitioner, a taxable person, issued a tax invoice and an e-way bill for a supply.
– The vehicle carrying the goods was intercepted for verification.
– The e-way bill had expired, but the delay was due to a vehicle breakdown.

Court’s Rationale:
– The court emphasized that mens rea (intent to evade tax) is essential for imposing a penalty.
– Previous judgments supported this view.
– The factual matrix showed no intention to evade tax.
– The e-way bill’s technical breach alone couldn’t justify the penalty.

To Summarise,
– Tax compliance matters, but intent matters too.
– Businesses should focus on adherence while considering practical challenges.

The copy of the order is as under:

 

Prahlad Rai Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others Allahabad High Court (1)




Menu