Order Date – 19 February 2024

Parties: M/s Indeutsch Industries Private Limited Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s Indeutsch Industries Private Limited, after preparing tax invoice, bill of entry and e-way bill, contacted transporter M/s Pawan Roadlines, for transportation of goods.
• Due to non-availability of vehicle, the transporter provided another vehicle and the respondent detained the goods on the ground that the goods were being transported on a vehicle different from that declared on e-way bill.

Issue –

• Whether goods can be detained on the ground that the goods were being transported on a vehicle different from that declared on e-way bill?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner in certain cases to show that there was no evasion of tax. However, when the the error in the documents is only that of a clerical or typographical error, the initial burden of proof lies on the department to show there was intention to evade tax. In the present case the department has failed to do so and in fact has not even tried to do so.
• Apart from this one error in the e-way bill, nothing has been shown by the department to justify the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. The impugned order also failed to take into account the document produced by the petitioner of the transporter wherein the explanation was given with regard to the reason for the mistake of the vehicle number in the e-way bill.
• it is clear that intention to evade tax is sine qua non before imposition of penalty. In present case the department has failed to establish any such intention whatsoever. The writ petition is allowed.