Ridhi Sidhi Granite and Tiles vs State of Uttar Pradesh

In the courtroom proceedings, Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, the learned counsel representing the petitioner, presented arguments, countered by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State. The case at hand involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenges the order dated September 23, 2023, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal)-I, State Goods and Services Tax, NOIDA, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal against the order in original dated April 10, 2021.

Upon examining the records, it becomes evident that the dispute primarily revolves around an error in the address of the consignee mentioned in the E-Way Bill. Aside from this discrepancy, there are no other issues concerning the consignment. The invoice provided accurate information, the goods matched the description in the invoice, and all relevant materials were intact. The imposition of tax stems solely from the technical error in the consignee’s address on the E-Way Bill.

The petitioner asserts that there was no intentional evasion of tax, and the authorities have failed to demonstrate any mens rea on the part of the petitioner. The error in the E-Way Bill appears to be inadvertent rather than deliberate. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the imposition of tax based solely on this technicality is unjustified.

In summary, the petitioner argues that the imposition of tax should be reconsidered, emphasizing the absence of any deliberate wrongdoing and the minor nature of the error in question. The case underscores the need for a fair and balanced approach in tax enforcement, especially when dealing with technical discrepancies that do not indicate fraudulent intent.

The statement outlines a series of legal precedents established by the Court regarding the imposition of penalties for tax evasion. It asserts that the presence of mens rea, or a guilty mind, is essential for the imposition of such penalties, and mere technical errors are not sufficient grounds for penalty imposition. The cited cases include M/s Modern Traders v. State of U.P. (2018), M/s Galaxy Enterprises v. State of U.P. (2022), and Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. (2019).

Based on these precedents, the Court proceeds to nullify and overturn the orders dated September 23, 2023, and April 10, 2021. Additionally, it directs the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner within one month from the current date. The decision concludes by granting other consequential reliefs and officially allowing the writ petition.

Download Pdf:
Ridhi Sidhi Granite And Tiles

For Reference Visit:
Allahabad High Court

Read Another Case Law:
GST Case Law