Tax Fairness: M/S Sanjay Sales Agency v. State of U.P.

Comment

The court’s decision to set aside the penalty order and direct a fresh assessment aligns with principles of fairness and adherence to legal requirements. It underscores the importance of establishing intent to evade tax before imposing penalties under Section 129 of the GST Act. This ruling provides clarity on the application of penalties in cases where proper documentation accompanies goods in transit, reaffirming the need for procedural correctness in tax enforcement measures.

Pleading

In the case involving M/S Sanjay Sales Agency, the challenge is against a penalty order under the GST Act. The agency asserts rightful ownership of goods in transit and denies any intent to evade tax. This assertion is supported by a relevant court decision.

Facts

The penalty pertains to goods accompanied by proper documentation in transit from Delhi to Haldwani. Despite no intent to evade tax, a penalty was imposed under Section 129(1)(b). The petitioner seeks relief, ready to deposit the penalty under protest due to the perishable nature of the goods and substantial loss in value. The respondent argues the penalty was rightly imposed but concedes the necessity of intent to evade tax for such penalties.

Observation

.In the case of M/S Sanjay Sales Agency v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:193624-DB), the petitioner challenges the penalty order dated 08.09.2023 imposed by the Assistant Commissioner Ghaziabad under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner asserts that they were the rightful owner of the goods in transit and had no intention to evade tax. Reference is made to a prior court decision, Writ (Tax) No. 178 of 2023 (M/s Sahil Traders Vs. State of U.P.), which supports the petitioner’s position.

Download pdf[M/S Sanjay Sales Agency vs State of U.P]

Download pdf[M/S Sanjay Sales Agency vs State of U.P]