Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, D. N. RAY
DYNAMIC RUBBERS PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (AE) CGST, KUTCH – Respondent
Key Points: - Penalty under Section 129(1) modified from Rs.11,08,150 to Rs.25,000 due to minor/technical lapse in non-generation of Part-B of E-way bill (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Court held that non-generation of Part-B constitutes violation but penalty should be proportionate to the contravention and not punitive for technical lapses (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vijay Patel for learned advocate Mr. Rahil P. Jain for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti for the respondents.
2. Having regard to the controversy involved, which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Hetvi H. Sancheti waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.
4. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.11.2022 passed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”) whereby, the respondent No. 1 has confirmed the order dated 03.03.2022, imposing penalty of Rs.11,08,150/- under Section 129(1) of the GST Act.
5. The petitioner company is into the business of manufacturing of various items of rubber and is also having registration under the GST Act. The petitioner had imported material from China for the purpose of its business after payment of Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) on 14.12.2021.
5.1 The petitioner imported Rubber Conveyor Belt and allied mate
Minor procedural lapses in compliance with tax regulations should not attract severe penalties, especially when there is no intent to evade tax.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
Penalties under GST Act require evidence of intent to evade tax; mere technical omissions do not warrant penalties when tax has been duly paid.
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.
The imposition of penalties for minor discrepancies in tax-related documents without intent to evade tax is not justified under the CGST/SGST Acts.
Expiration of an e-Way Bill during transit does not invoke penalties under Section 129 without evidence of intent to evade taxes.
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
