Back
AMRITA SINHA
Sandip Kumar Singhal – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Revenue, Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMRITA SINHA, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudicating order and the order passed by the appellate authority affirming the same by holding that the petitioner acted in contravention of Section 67(2) read with Section 129 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act” for short).
2. The goods of the petitioner were seized on 22nd February, 2022 at 2 p.m. from a godown upon invoking the provision of Section 67(2) of the said Act. The order of seizure issued in Form GST INS-02 dated 22nd February, 2022 mentions that, on inspection of the goods under Section 67(1) of the Act and on scrutiny of the books of accounts, registers, documents/papers and goods found during inspection/search there were reasons to believe that the goods were liable to be confiscated and the same were seized by invoking power under Section 67(2) of the Act. A report of satisfaction that the goods were liable to be confiscated was prepared on the same date at 4.30 pm. The e-way bill status of the goods mentions that the e-way bill already expired on the date of inspection and seizure.
3. E-way bill was generated on 9th February, 2022 for transporting fifteen thousand kilograms of cum
Under Section 15 of the Act, the value of the supply of goods would be the transaction value and a transaction value would be the price that is paid or payable for the supply of goods.Q
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the genuineness of documents and actual movement of goods; failure to do so justifies seizure under the IGST/CGST Act.
The expiration of an e-way bill during transit, without any intent to evade tax, does not justify severe penalties under the CGST Act; penalties must be proportionate to the offense committed.
Minor discrepancies in transport documentation do not warrant penalties under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with general penalties appropriately applied instead under Section....
Penalties for minor breaches under the CGST/SGST Acts should be proportionate and not severe unless there is intent to evade tax.
Penalties under Section 129 of the CGST Act must not apply to minor infractions without intent to evade tax, emphasizing moderation and rectifiability of documentation errors.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
