VARUN BEVERAGES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) In the present petition, the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order of penalty dated March 6, 2020 passed under Sec. 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the UPGST Act") and the order of the Appellate Authority dated September 16, 2023.

(3.) The factual matrix indubitably is that the invoices contained the vehicle number in which the goods were being transported; secondly, only part B of the e-way bill could not be generated; thirdly, the department has not been able to indicate any intention of the petitioner to evade tax. Furthermore, in the present case, this was not a sale that was being made to third party, but the goods are transported from one branch of the petitioner to another branch. He relied upon judgment of this Court in M/S Roli Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No.937 of 2022 decided on January 16, 2024) wherein this Court had considered two judgements of the Allahabad High Court in VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd v. State of U.P. and another reported in 2018 NTN [Vol.67]-1 and M/s Citykart Retail Private Limited through Authorized Representative vs. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. [Vol.113]-173 and held that non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill by itself without any intention to evade tax would not lead to imposition of penalty under Sec. 129(3) of the UPGST Act.