M/S Bhagwati Chemical vs. The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
dismissed by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the time of interception of the vehicle in question, all the requisite documents were produced and the goods were found as per the description mention in the tax invoice. He further submits that while passing the penalty order under section 129(3) of the GST Act, no reason has been assigned. He further submits that Part - B of the e-way bill could not be filled due to technical glitch. He further submits that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. He further submits that all other documents were duly filled, except Part - B of the e-way bill and the authorities below have not whispered a word indicating intention of the petitioner to evade payment of tax.
In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ Tax No. 2148/2025, decided on 09.05.2025] as well as the judgements of this Court in M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited Vs. the CCT & Another [Writ C No. 22285/2019, decided on 06.09.2022] and M/s Roli Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ Tax No. 937/2022, decided on 16.01.2024] as well as Single Judge Bench of this Court in M/s Metloy Cast Vs. Additional Commissioner, Grade -2 and another (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:121373).
Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the goods were in movement and Part - B of the e-way bill was not duly filled and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
The short issue involved in the present case is with regard to penalty under section 129(3) of the GST Act on the basis of non-filling of Part -B of the e-way bill. The record shows that the stand of the petitioner was that due to technical glitch, Part - B of the e-way fill could not be filled, but there was no intention to evade payment of tax as well as none of the authorities below has recorded any finding with regard to intention to evade payment of tax. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Private Limited (supra) has categorically held that non-filling of e-way bill will not attract penalty under section 129(3) of the GST Act. The same view has been reiterated by this Court in M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited (supra) and M/s Roli Enterprises (supra). Further, the record reveals that due to technical error, Part - B of the e-way bill could not be filled, which has not been disputed at any stage.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, there was no intention of the petitioner to evade payment of tax, which would amount to levy of penalty under section 129(3) of the GST Act.
In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 3.2.2024 and 21.11.2023 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and same are hereby quashed.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The authority concerned is directed to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the present proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.