Facts
The writ petition is aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the Assistant Commissioner (In-charge) Mathura, Respondent in Form MOU-09 under Section 129(1) (b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 whereby and whereunder penalty of Rs.48,53,940/- has been levied upon the petitioner by not treating the petitioner to be the owner of goods. Admittedly, the goods were duly accompanied by the tax invoice, e-way bill and bilty issued in the name of the petitioner as the consignor and the goods were in transit through the State of U.P. during its movement from Kolkata to New Delhi and as such, there was no intention to evade tax.
Submissions
Ankur Agarwal, counsel representing the revenue, opposed the writ petition by submitting that the petitioner has rightly been held not the owner of the goods and the penalty has rightly been imposed upon the petitioner under Section 129(1) (b).
Decision
The division bench of the Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava observed that the E-way Bills being the documents of title to the goods were accompanying the goods hence, the conclusion of the revenue that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods is patently erroneous. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were liable to be initiated under Section 129(1)(a) and not 129(1)(b) as has been done in the present case.
The bench set aside the impugned penalty order passed in Form MOU-09 under Section 129(1) (b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Case title: M/S Bhawani Traders v/s State of U.P. and Another
Citation: WRIT TAX No. – 854 of 2023
