Fair Enforcement: Quashing Unjust Penalties in GST Compliance

Comment

The Court observed that the petitioner had fulfilled their obligations under the GST Act by generating digital documents and providing physical copies during inspection. The imposition of penalty was deemed unjustified, and the orders imposing the penalty were quashed. The Court also urged revenue authorities to ensure proper training for officers to avoid harassment of honest taxpayers.

Pleading

The petitioner argued that they had complied with GST regulations by generating digital documents and providing physical copies upon inspection. They contended that the penalty was unjustified as they did not intend to evade tax and had promptly produced all required documents.

Facts

The petitioner, represented by a lawyer, argued their appeal shouldn’t be thrown out just because it was filed late. They claimed a specific law (Limitation Act, 1963) doesn’t apply to their case. They insisted the appeals court couldn’t overlook the deadline and pointed to past Supreme Court rulings to support their position.

Observation

The petitioner, a trader registered under the GST Act, received an order for supply of goods and prepared an e-Invoice and e-Way Bill. These documents were provided to the vehicle driver digitally, but when the vehicle was intercepted by revenue authorities, physical copies were presented. The authorities still detained the goods, alleging incomplete documentation.

Download pdf[Hemant Taneja vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others]

download