Procedural compliance in tax documentation is mandatory; failure to fill an e-way bill's section warrants penalty under tax law.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned A.C.S.C. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Tiwari for respondent no. 3.

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 this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.8.2020 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST-113/19 A.Y. 2019-20 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

4. Brief facts of the case as stated, are that the petitioner being a registered company incorporated under the Companies Act having GSTIN No. 07AACCM3279J1Z8 as well as duly certified by ISO 9001:2015. The petitioner is a verified seller of supreme quality of metal seated zero leakage Ball Valves and purchaser of Ball Valve, Diaphragm Valves in bulk. In the normal course of business, the petitioner has made outward supply of Rotor Assembly Elmo and Complete Assy-CL 3001 to NTPC Ltd, Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Station, P.O. Jyotinagar, Distt. Pedapalli, Telangana vide Tax Invoice No. 0000781/19-20 dated 14.8.2019 and the said goods were being transported from New Delhi to Telangana via Agra, U.P., where the same was intercepted by respondent no. 2 at Saiyan, Agra, U.P. on 16.8.2019 and after physical verification of the goods, it was found that part B of the e-way bill accompanying with the goods, was not filled on which notice was issued proposing to impose tax @ 18 % i.e. Rs. 14,63,063/- along with equal amount of penalty. Thereafter on deposit of impugned tax along with penalty, the goods in question were released and respondent no. 2 vide order dated 21.8.2019 passed the penalty order in Form GST MOV 09 under Section 20 of IGST read with Section 129 (3) of CGST Act observing that part B of e-way bill was not filled, hence the seizure of the goods was valid. Feeling aggrieved to the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent no. 1 by order dated 31.8.2020. Hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that goods in question was sold by one registered dealer to another registered dealer and same was accompanying with genuine tax invoices, GR, e-way bill; the authorities ought not to have seized the goods on technical glitch. He further submitted that merely because part B of e-way bill was not filled, which was required to be filled by the transporter, the proceedings has wrongly been initiated against the petitioner. It was further argued that there was no intention to evade the payment of tax; once the authorities have not recorded any finding of fact in respect of any intention to evade the payment of tax, the impugned order is not justified in the eyes of law and same is liable to the quashed.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Ram Dev Trading Company v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 779 of 2017, decided on 30.1.2017), which was affirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (c ) No. 18781 of 2018 decided on 27.7.2018. He further relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in VSL Alloy (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Writ Tax No.