Penalty order u/s 129 not sustainable; where Part-B of E-way bill not filled due to technical issues

Facts of the case: – In this case, at the time of interception, goods of the petitioner were accompanied by bilty which contained the details of the truck in which the goods were being transported. There was no difference in the quantity or quality of goods being carried and the Department had not indicated any intention to evade tax on behalf of the petitioner.

The Department ordered under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act imposing penalty on grounds of missing details in Part-B of the e-way bill accompanying the goods. 

The Petitioner filed the petition before the court against the order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act imposing penalty on grounds of missing details in Part-B of the e-way bill accompanying the goods.

Decision of Court:- The Allahabad High Court relied upon the judgment in the case of M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another, wherein it was held as under

“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.”

Accordingly, the penalty order under Section 129(3) of the UP GST Act was quashed.

To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 67