Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
AJAY BHANOT, J.
M/S Jay Vijay Traders Varanasi - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 ors. - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. 1419 OF 2023.
Decided On : 14-12-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. validity of e-way bill requirement under gst (Para 2) |
| 2. post facto rationalization is disallowed (Para 3) |
| 3. writ petition dismissed (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Heard Shri. Deepak Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order imposing penalty in proceedings taken out under Section 129 of the GST Act. In the impugned order passed by the initial authority dated 31.01.2023 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 18.10.2023, the authorities below have found that the petitioner was not in possession of a valid E-Way Bill while transporting the goods.
3. The E-Way Bill is a mandatory requirement under Rule 138A of the GST Rules. Transporting the goods without possession in the absence of E-Way Bill constitutes a contravention of the provisions of the GST Act. The authorities have further found that the E-Way Bill which was later produced was infact generated after the interception of the vehicle by the revenue authority. The said E-Way Bill was rejected as it was found to be an attempt to post facto rationalize the illicit transportation of goods. The aforesaid findings have not been assailed before the initial authority in the show cause notice or in the memo of appeal or even in the Writ petition.
4. In this wake, the Writ petition (tax) is dismissed.
Transporting goods without a valid E-Way Bill violates the GST Act, supporting the imposition of penalties.
The requirement of e-way bills under the U.P. GST Act was unenforceable between 01.02.2018 and 31.03.2018, nullifying associated penalties.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Section 129 of the GST Act empowers the authority to detain the vehicle and seize goods, releasing them only on payment of penalty equal to 200% of the tax payable on such goods.
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.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
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
