Back
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, PANKAJ JAIN
Sterile India Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against orders related to goods in transit (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. disputes over tax liability and imposition of penalty (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal interpretations of section 129 of cgst/sgst act (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of petition as lacking merit (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Jain, J.
By way of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by Proper Officer-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer, Rohtak (for short 'Proper Officer') (Annexure P-13) and that dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-18) whereby the order passed by the Proper Officer-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer (Annexure P-13) has been affirmed.
2. The petitioner claims himself to be engaged in manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals. Petitioner is an Assessee under Goods & Service Tax Tariff-Goods. The goods belonging to the petitioner were apprehended while in transit in Vehicle No.HR-61C-7811 by the Proper Officer on 23.05.2018 at 11.15 PM. On the asking of the Proper Officer the person incharge of the conveyance i.e. Driver produced documents. Along with the tax invoices and delivery challans, following six E-way bills were produced
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
Intent to evade tax is a necessary condition for proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act; absence of such intent invalidates penalties imposed under these sections.
Minor procedural lapses in compliance with tax regulations should not attract severe penalties, especially when there is no intent to evade tax.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
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.
E-way bill is mandatory for transporting goods; failure to carry it raises a presumption of tax evasion, which must be rebutted by the transporter.
For proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act, there must be intent to evade tax established; a mere technical breach does not warrant penalties.
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
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
