FACTS & SUBJECT MATTER: 
The only controversy involved in the present petition is with regard to non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill. The undisputed facts are that firstly the invoice in fact had the details of the truck that was carrying the goods; secondly, the goods were not in variance with the invoice; and thirdly, the Department has not been able to indicate any kind of intention of the petitioner to evade tax.

CASE LAW: M/s Rawal Wasia Yarn Dying Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax And Another (WRIT TAX No. - 352 of 2023 dated 16-01-2024)

ISSUE : Whether error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax, is liable to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act?

HELD: The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held as under:
(1) That the petitioner has relied upon two judgments of this 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 v. Commissioner Commercial Tax and Another reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. [Vol.113]-173 to buttress her argument that non filling up of Part 'B' of the e-Way Bill by itself without any intention to evade tax cannot lead to imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.
(2) Observed that in the present case, the facts are quite similar to one in M/sCitykart Retail Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra) and I see no reason why this Court should take a different view of the matter, as the invoice itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Once this fact has been substantiated, there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act.
(3) Penalty orders dated May 24, 2022 and October 15, 2022 are quashed and set aside. 
(4) The petition is allowed. Consequential reliefs to follow. The respondents are directed to return the security to the petitioner within six weeks from date.