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.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Shri Srijan Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State - opposite party.

2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained in view of the fact that no GST Tribunal has been constituted in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.

3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as well as the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 confirming the demand/penalty of Rs. 5,51,602/- on the petitioner.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having GSTIN No. 19AAECS9421J1ZZ having its registered Office at 2nd Floor, 5 SS Chamber, Chittaranjan Avenue, Jamuria, West Bengal and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial grade steel components, i.e., channel, beams, etc. The petitioner through tax invoice dated 17.11.2021 transported 4 MT, 10.800 MT and 6.970 MT of steel channels of different dimensions and 4 MT each of steel beams of different dimensions to M/s Maa Ambey Steels. The said goods were accompanied with tax invoices, e-way bill and GR's. The goods were intercepted on 19.11.2021 at Maharajpur, Kanpur and on verification, it was found that e-way bill no. 8211 9011 4043 had been cancelled by the purchasing dealer; whereupon, form GST MOV 06 dated 22.11.2021 was prepared and the goods were seized. Subsequently, GST MOV 07 dated 22.11.2021 was prepared seeking response from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted the response that all e-way bills were duly filled up and the petitioner was not aware about the cancellation of e-way bills by the purchasing dealer, but the petitioner submitted that the goods in question were sold by the registered dealer to a registered purchasing dealer and were accompanied along with genuine documents. Dissatisfied with the reply, the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 was passed under section 129(3) of the CGST Act imposing penalty. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 18.06.2022. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after receiving the purchase order from Maa Ambey, a tax invoice was raised and e- way bill was generated with unique identity no. 821190114043 reflecting all relevant details as per rule 138 of the CGST Rules, including part A & B, which was valid upto 22.11.2021. The transporter, namely, Shiv Om Logistics, issued consignment note SO 401 in favour the petitioner with recipient's details as the consignee of goods and further reflecting the destination as Fazalganj, Kanpur. The said document along with goods was on its journey to its destination, when it was intercepted by the respondent no. 3 and the driver of the truck provided all documents, i.e., tax invoice, e-way bill, consignment note, etc. On intimation that the e-way bill, which was accompanying the goods have already been cancelled by the purchaser itself, the petitioner inquired and got to know as to why the recipient has cancelled the e-way bill due to certain discrepancies in the valuation of goods and the said factum was informed to the respondents - authorities, but the respondent no. 3 passed the detention order on 22.11.2021 with the remark that e-way bill was not OK, but no observation with regard to intention to evade payment of tax was made against the petition