For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Mr. Shubham Agarwal for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent-State.

2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained by this Court in view of the fact that G.S.T. Tribunal is not functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.

3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 9.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 4 and the order dated 17.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 3.

4. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a registered company having GST No. 27AACCS3376C1ZH and engaged in the business of manufacturing & sale of basic iron and steel etc. In the normal course of business the petitioner dispatched the consignment of 30 ton of non-alloy steel in rolled round to M/s Hi-Tech Gears Limited, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan accompanying Invoice No. 232705612 dated 26.5.2023 as well as E-way Bill No. 281596024395 dated 26.5.2023 through Vehicle No. UP 94 T 6681 of Supersonic Carrier Private Limited. The said E-way was generated on 26.5.2023 and was valid up to 1.6.2023. During the onward journey from Maharashtra to Rajasthan, the goods were passing through State of UP, on 28.5.2023 where at about 1:00-2:00 P.M. the vehicle was struck in mud at the side of road because of heavy load of consignment and thereafter with the help of crane the vehicle could be pulled out and after removing the break down by the mechanic the vehicle could be moved for its onward journey. On the intervening night of 2/3.6.2023, at around 10:00 A.M. the vehicle was intercepted and show cause notice was issued on 4.6.2023 which was replied by the petitioner accompanying the affidavit of driver of the vehicle however being not satisfied with the reply, the impugned order has been passed demanding a sum of Rs. 8,43,456/- as penalty. Against the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17.6.2023. Hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that goods in question was accompanying with the valid documents i.e. e-tax invoice, e-way bill, G.R. and the validity of e-way bill was up to 1.6.2023 and the goods in question during its onward journey from Maharastra to Rajasthan was passing through the State of UP where the vehicle was got struck in mud on the road side due to heavy load of consignment and in spite of several efforts, the vehicle could not be pulled out but on 29.5.2023, the truck was pulled out with the help of crane and after pulling out the vehicle, when the engine could not start as some break down was caused, the driver had immediately contacted to the mechanic on 30.5.2023 and as various spare parts were not available in local market of Lalitpur, he went to Jhansi along with the mechanic for purchase of spare parts and within two days the vehicle could be repaired and thereafter was ready to move for its onward journey, however the same was intercepted in the night of 2/3-6.2023 and show cause notice was issued.

6. He submitted that while replying the show cause notice, the petitioner has annexed the affidavit of truck driver wherein the said incident was categorically mentioned in detail. He further submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 6.9.2023, the said contention was denied but without giving due weight-age, the order was passed imposing penalty of Rs. 8,43,456/-, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner annexing all the documentary evidences such as e-tax invoice, spare part purchase receipts, mechanic charge