The Allahabad High Court in a ruling addressed the levied penalties under the U.P. GST Act for transporting goods without an e-way bill. The matter is towards levying the penalties via the Assistant Commissioner under the U.P. GST Act, 2017.
While quoting the duration between February 2018 and March 2018, it was claimed by the applicant that the need for the e-way bills was not able to be enforced directing a precedent from the court in M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs State of U.P.
Important: Is GST E Way Bill Mandatory For Even 1 KM of Distance?
With the applicant’s opinion, the High Court concurred highlighting that at the time of the cited duration, the legislation of the e-way bills was not statutorily tenable. The penalties levied on the applicant for transporting the goods without an e-way bill were considered unjustified. It was indeed remarked by the court that procedural discrepancies were there in dismissing the petition of the applicant which kept the quashing of penalties.
The Allahabad High Court on the foundation of the interpretation of the law and precedents permitted the writ petition, consequently quashing the penalty orders on March 20, 2018, and April 26, 2019.
It led the applicant to refund any deposited amounts within 1 month. The same judgment supports the importance of statutory clarity and compliance with the legal provisions in the cases related to the GST and e-way bills.
| Case Title | Hira Lal Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. |
| Case No. | Writ Tax No. 240 of 2020 |
| Date | 30.01.2024 |
| Counsel For Petitioner | Vishwjit |
| Counsel For Respondent | C.S.C. |
| Allahabad High Court | Read Order |
Disclaimer:- “All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check.”
[ad_2]
Source link
