Facing a Penalty for Tax Evasion? Explore Your Options Now!
Thoughts, Insight and Research by: Abhishek Raja Ram, 9810638155
1. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 22 CENTAX 457 :: (2024) 7 CTOGST (All) 1221
A penalty under Section 129(3) could not be imposed on the detention of goods and vehicles when the discrepancy in the e-way bill was only a typographical error and there was no intention to evade tax.
2. Banaras Industries - Allahabad High Court
2024-VIL-814-Alh :: (2024) 24 CENTAX 215
Goods were detained on ground that e-way bill was not produced during detention. However, E-way bill was produced before seizure order was passed, Order imposing tax and penalty on detention of goods in transit was not sustainable when there was no finding regarding intention to evade tax.
3. AA Plastics Pvt. Ltd. - Allahabad High Court
(2024) 21 CENTAX 381 :: (2024) 7 CTOGST (All) 10
Where goods in transit were detained due to expiry of e-way bill and reason given by assessee was that driver diverted truck for personal reasons without information, order of detention and penalty was quashed as proceedings under Section 129 read with section 130, require intent to evade tax, which revenue failed to establish.
4. BMR Enterprises - Allahabad High Court
2024-VIL-516-ALH :: (2024) 19 CENTAX 57
Wrong vehicle no. in e-way Bill - Detention of goods and vehicle.
Correct no.: UP 83 CT 2724
Incorrect no.: UP 80 CT 7024
Where goods were detained and penalty was levied for minor discrepancies in vehicle registration details in e-way bill, High Court set aside penalty order, holding it to be case of unintentional mistake not attracting penalty.
5. Deco Plywood Industries - Allahabad High Court
2024-VIL-224-ALH :: (2024) 19 CENTAX 297 :: (2024) 7 CTOGST (All) 186
Discrepancy of four digits invoice no. in e-way bill - the e-way bill showed the document/invoice No.2224 instead of 0401
Where assessee/petitioner-dealer argued that penalty was wrongly imposed for minor e-way bill error without tax evasion intent, High Court quashed orders, ruling that Section 129 penalties cannot apply to minor, non-evasive errors.