Ridhi Sidhi Granite And Tiles Vs State of UP
Date: February 29, 2024
Subject Matter
No penalty for mere technical errors in e-way bill address and where there is no intent of tax evasion
Summary
The case revolves around a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging an order from the State Goods and Services Tax authorities, wherein the imposition of tax was solely based on a technical error in the E-Way Bill address. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, citing the lack of evidence of mens rea for tax evasion and the legal precedents emphasizing the essentiality of mens rea for imposition of penalties related to tax evasion. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to the refund of the deposited amount.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated September 23, 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Goods and Services Tax, NOIDA dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order in original dated April 10, 2021.
3. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that apart from an error with regard to the address of the consignee in the E-Way Bill, there were no other issues with the said consignment. The invoice contained the address, the goods matched the description in the invoice and all other materials were intact. The imposition of tax is only on the basis of a technical error with regard to address of the consignee that was wrongly written in the E-Way Bill. The authorities have not been able to indicate any mens rea on the part of the petitioner for evasion of tax.
4. In a catena of judgments, this Court has held that presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is a sine qua non for imposition of penalty and mere technical error would not lead to imposition of penalty [see M/s Modern Traders v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.763 of 2018, decided on 9.5.2018), M/s Galaxy Enterprises v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.1412 of 2022, decided on 6.11.2023 and Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.1400 of 2019, decided on 2.1.2024].
5. In light of the above, the orders dated September 23, 2023 and April 10, 2021 are quashed and set aside. The amount deposited by the petitioner be refunded to it within a period of one month from date. Other consequential reliefs to follow.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.