IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
M/s. Indeutsch Industries Private Limited – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ Tax No. 1314 Of 2019
Decided On : 19-02-2024
Penalty - Goods and Services Tax - Section 129(3) - Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - [Section 129(3)]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing artist brushes, was aggrieved by the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sold goods from a SEZ unit to a Domestic Traffic Area, and the goods were detained due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number on the e-way bill.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had paid custom duty and IGST on the goods, and the interception occurred shortly after the goods left the SEZ unit. The court held that the burden of proof lay on the department to show intention to evade tax, and as the error was clerical, the department failed to establish such intention. The impugned orders imposing penalty were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act, the burden of proof regarding intention to evade tax, and the discrepancy in the e-way bill.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that penalties should be reserved for cases where there is a demonstrated actual intent to evade tax, and that technical errors without potential financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of penalties. The court held that the burden of proof rested on the tax authorities to establish the actual intent to evade tax before imposing penalties.
Final Decision: The impugned orders imposing penalty were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The court directed the refund of any amount deposited by the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in appeal dated June 22, 2019 and the order dated June 22, 2018 imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
Facts as narrated in the writ petition are as follows :-
3. Petitioner is a company, engaged in manufacturing Artist Brush and its materials, for which Petitioner is duly registered under the GST regime with GSTN No.09AAACI2206F1Z2. Petitioner is having its manufacturing unit established in Noida Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as 'SEZ'). In normal course of business, petitioner sold 102 boxes of Artist Brushes valuing Rs. 16,86,696.68/- to one M/s Pidilite Industries Ltd., Delhi (GSTIN No.07AAACP4156B1ZU) vide Tax Invoice No.18-19/CEN/23 dated 14.6.2018, after charging Integrated Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'IGST') at applicable rate of 18%. Since the transaction in question was from a SEZ unit to a Domestic Traffic Area (hereinafter referred to as 'DTA'), hence petitioner also charged customs duty and SWS (customs) at the rate of 10% each and also filed Bill of Entry in respect of the transaction in question. After preparing tax invoice and bill of entry, petitioner contacted transporter M/s Pawan Roadlines, for transportation of goods, who agreed to transport the goods on vehicle bearing registration no.UP14DT-8219. On the basis of the information provided by transporter, petitioner generated e-way bill no. 4110 1410 2307 (valid till 22.6.2018), after uploading all the required details relating to the transaction. From the enquiries subsequently made by petitioner, it appears that due to non-availability of vehicle bearing registration no. UP14DT-8219, the transporter provided another vehicle bearing registration no.UP14BT-8220 and due to inadvertence, petitioner also loaded the goods in the said vehicle, without even checking the vehicle number mentioned on e-way bill. When vehicle loaded with goods in question was crossing Ghaziabad via Vasundhara, the same was stopped by Respondent No.3 for verification of goods and documents. On being stopped, driver produced the entire documents available with him including e-way bill, tax invoice, bill of entry etc.. On examination of these documents, Respondent No. 3 directed driver to take the vehicle to Commercial Tax Office, Mohan Nagar for physical verification of goods. Even though the goods were being transported on the strength of valid and genuine documents, specified under Rule 138A, then also Respondent No.3 passed detention order detaining the goods on the ground that the goods were being transported on a vehicle different from that declared on e-way bill.
Contentions of the Petitioner
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the goods were accompanied by the tax invoice, packing list, bill of entry for home consumption and the e-way bill. He submitted that the only mistake in all these documents was that the truck number written in the e-way bill was incorrect. He submitted that this mistake had occurred because of a problem in the initial truck that was supposed to carry the goods. He relied on a letter provided by the transporter 'M/s Pawan Roadlines' that explained the reasons for the change of the truck. Counsel submitted that this change in the vehicle was not noted by the representative's of the petitioner, and accordingly, the e-way bill that has been generated based on the earlier truck number was sent alongwith the goods. Counsel further submitted that the bill of entry for home consumption indicates that custom duty had been paid and on such document the number of the truck that was carrying the go
Penalties should be reserved for cases where there is a demonstrated actual intent to evade tax, and technical errors without potential financial implications should not be grounds for imposition of ....
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.
Imposition of penalty under the Goods and Services Tax Act requires mens rea to evade tax, and a technical violation without intention to evade tax cannot lead to the imposition of penalty.
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.
The absence of essential documents with intercepted goods raises a presumption of intention to evade tax, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee to rebut this presumption.
Imposition of penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements under the GST Act should consider the nature of the mistake and the circular issued by the Ministry of Finance.
The presence of mens rea for evasion of tax is essential for the imposition of a penalty under Section 129 of the Goods and Service Tax Act.
Mens rea is essential for imposing penalties under tax laws; technical faults without intent to evade tax should not attract penalties.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.