"PENALTY: SEC 129 & INTENTION TO EVADE TAX"
In my humble view, Penalty U/s 129 cannot be levied unless there is Intention to Evade Tax and this allegation of intention should be part of Notice as well as Order
The Order should be Speaking Order with all other requirements
1. Calcutta High Court
1.1 Mohammad Shamasher (2024)
The penalty under Section 129 cannot be invoked merely for not producing all the legal documents supporting the transportation, as there was no intent on the part of the petitioner to evade tax.
1.2 Saraf Trexim Ltd. (2024)
Where delay in generating new e-way bill was reasonably explained, supported by circumstances like accident, and there was no intent to violate provisions of CGST Act, imposition of 200% penalty may not be justified.
2. Allahabad High Court
2.1 Precision Tools India (2024)
Where technical difficulties prevented filling of Part B of e-Way Bill and there was no intention to evade tax, penalties under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act were deemed unsustainable.
2.2 Roli Enterprises (2024)
Where 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, there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.
2.3 Varun Beverages Ltd. (2024)
Where the invoices containing the vehicle number in which the goods were being transported and only part B of the e-way bill could not be generated and the department has not been able to indicate any intention of the petitioner to evade tax,
the court has set aside the orders imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act on the reason that the defect was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax.
2.4 Axrecycle Pvt. Ltd. (2024)
Where impugned order passed under section 129(3) levying penalty on assessee for non filling up of Part 'B' of e-Way Bill, appeal against said order rejected,
respondent-authorities not been able to indicate any mens rea on part of assessee for evasion of tax, impugned orders were to be set aside.
2.5 Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics (2024)
For minor typographical error of vehicle number in e-way bill without any further material to substantiate intention to evade tax, penalty is not imposable.
3. Jharkhand High Court
3.1 Rivigo Services Pvt. Ltd. (2022)
Where goods alongwith vehicle were detained and penalty was imposed for transporting goods after expiry of E-Way Bill
without considering GPS tracking report showing that after reaching warehouse, vehicle was standing outside due to paucity of space, same was not valid
Thanks
Abhishek Raja Ram
9810638155
Abhishek Raja "Ram"
@abhishekrajaram
MEC, STBA Delhi || Speaker and Author on GST. Life dedicated towards Tax and Economic Reforms & Simplification