ROLI ENTERPRISES V. STATE OF U.P

The case at hand involves a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with Mr. Shubham Agrawal representing the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar representing the State respondents. The petitioner is challenging an order dated November 10, 2020, issued under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”), which imposed a penalty on the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner is contesting an appellate order dated January 10, 2022, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal.

The primary issue in contention pertains to the non-filling up of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill. It is established from the record that the bill contained details of the truck transporting the goods, the goods matched the invoice, and there was no evidence indicating any intent by the petitioner to evade tax. Mr. Shubham Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, has cited two judgments of the court, namely VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and another (2018 NTN [Vol.67]-1) and M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited, to support the petitioner’s case.

The petitioner argues that the penalty imposed under the Act is unjustified given the absence of any deliberate attempt to evade tax and the compliance with other regulatory requirements. The petitioner seeks relief from the penalty levied and upheld in the appellate order.

On the other hand, Sri Rishi Kumar, representing the State respondents, is expected to defend the imposition of the penalty and the appellate decision. Their argument may center on procedural adherence and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Act.

In essence, the case revolves around the interpretation of tax laws and the application of penalties under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act. The court will need to consider whether the petitioner’s actions warrant the imposed penalty and whether there are grounds for overturning the appellate decision.

The case of Authorized Representative v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another, as reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. [Vol.113]-173, centers around the imposition of penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act for the non-filling of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill. Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, relied on an order by the appellate authority indicating that Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill was not filled up.

The argument against the imposition of penalties under Section 129(3) is supported by referencing the judgment in M/s Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.’s case. This case highlighted that the mere non-filling of Part ‘B’ of the e-Way Bill, without any intention to evade tax, cannot warrant the imposition of penalties. It emphasized that the failure to fill Part ‘B’ was a technical error, as supported by circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance addressing issues with the e-Way Bill process.

Drawing parallels with the Citykart case, it was argued that since the error was technical and there was no intent to evade tax, penalties under Section 129(3) should not be levied. Additionally, it was noted that the invoice contained details of the truck, further indicating that the error was not an attempt to evade taxes but rather a technical oversight.

The judgment concluded that the facts of the present case align closely with those of the Citykart case, and therefore, there was no reason for the court to adopt a different perspective. As the error was technical and unintentional, there was no basis for imposing penalties under Section 129(3) of the Act. Consequently, the orders dated November 10, 2020, and January 10, 2022, were quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The respondents were directed to return the security to the petitioner within six weeks.