IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
M/S Rateria Laminators Pvt.Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade 2 and Anr. - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. 599 OF 2023.
Decided On : 16-08-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural posture and prayers made. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts of supply and interception. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments regarding expired eway bills. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. responses from authorities and denial of claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's observations on evidence and claims. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. judicial comparisons and differentiations. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. decision to quash the impugned orders. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. final order and directions. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of scertiorari quashing order dated 18.4.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-II, Commercial Tax/State Tax, Kanpur, respondent no.2 under section 107 of the UPGST Act 2017 (Annexure No.14).
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of scertiorari quashing order dated 27.3.2023 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Bhognipur, Ramabai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat, U.P. Respondent no.2 under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act 2017 (Annexure No.11).
C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing, respondent no.2,Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, Bhognipur, Ramabai Nagar, Kanpur Dehat U.P. To release goods and vehicle seized vide seizure memo dated 23.3.2023 passed in GST MOV-06 forth with.
D. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondent no.2 from emplying coercive measures to recovery penalty pursuant to order dated 27.3.2023 passed From GST MOV09."
2. Since the GST Tribunal has not yet been formed the present writ petition is being entertained against the aforementioned impugned orders.
3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a Company registered under the COMPANIES ACT , 1956 having its business at 1,132, Cotton Street, Burrabazar, Kolkatta West Bengal. The petitioner in its normal course of business made inward supply of B55HM0003NA G-LEX HDPE-2 HSN 3901.20.0015 from GAIL, Auraiya U.P. The petitioner also made inward supply of similar item from GAIL Auraiya U.P. for which two invoices dated 6.3.2023 were prepared, copies of which have been annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. For movement of goods from Auraiya Uttar Pradesh to Jalpaiguri, West Bengal two Eway Bills were generated having validity upto 12.3.2023, copies of which are annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. A GR was also prepared on the same day i.e. 6.3.2023 in which invoice numbers and Eway bills have specifically been mentioned. It is stated that after completing the formalities goods were in transit from Auraiya U.P. to Jalpaiguri, W.B. and on way the Driver of the Vehicle No. UP-77-AN-6825 fell ill and there was also some break down of the vehicle, therefore onwards journey could not be continued to reach the destignation before 12.3.2023.
4. The Vehicle was intercepted by respondent no.2 on 13.3.2023 and Form GST MOV04 was prepared on 14.3.2023. Thereafter Form GST MOV01 was prepared on 23.3.2023 and consequently an order was passed on the same day that the goods in question are being carried without proper ducuments as Eway bills have expired. Thereafter on the same day From GST MOV 06 was prepared and subsequently respondent no.2 issued notice in From GST MOV 07 under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) proposing to impose penalty of Rs. 11,18,624/- under section 129(1)(a) of the Act and Rs. 36,66,606/- under section 129(1)(b) of the Act which has been annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. An order under section 129 (3) of the Act was passed directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,18,624/- for release of goods.
5. Being aggrieved with the said order the petitioner preferred appeal before under section 20 of the Act before respondent no.1 whic
Assistant Commissioner (ST) v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. 2022 (57) GSTL 97 (SC)
Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. State of U.P. 2022 (61) GSTL 385 (All.)
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
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.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
The expiration of an e-way bill during transit, without any intent to evade tax, does not justify severe penalties under the CGST Act; penalties must be proportionate to the offense committed.
Procedural compliance in tax documentation is mandatory; failure to fill an e-way bill's section warrants penalty under tax law.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
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.