Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Kartar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner, Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate, Dehradun and others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 924 of 2023
Decided On : 18-07-2023
E-way Bill - Goods Transport - Central/Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, Section 130 - Summary: The court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner for transporting goods without an e-way bill, indicating an intent to evade tax. The court found that the provisions of Section 130 of the Act were attracted due to the petitioner's actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a vehicle owner, was penalized for transporting goods without an e-way bill, leading to the imposition of a fine under Section 130 of the Act. The petitioner contested the penalty, claiming to be a mere transporter and not in connivance with the owner of the goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's failure to carry the e-way bill and discrepancies in the transportation route indicated an intent to evade tax, justifying the penalty imposed under Section 130 of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's actions constituted an intent to evade tax, warranting the penalty under Section 130 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's failure to carry the e-way bill and discrepancies in the transportation route inferred an intention to evade tax, justifying the penalty under Section 130 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner for transporting goods without an e-way bill, as it indicated an intent to evade tax.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Maithani, J.
The challenge in this petition is made to order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 130 of the Central/Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”) and related provisions by which a penalty has been imposed on the petitioner.
2. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows :-
(ii) The petitioner contests imposition of penalty in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle, under Section130 (2), third proviso of the Act.
(iii) The vehicle was engaged by one M/s Om International Company, whose office was at Nagloi, West Delhi; the goods were being transported from Ballabhgarh, Punjab to Lakheempur, U.P.; [a sale invoice No. 150 dated 14.01.2023 to one M/s Adi Shakti Traders Nagasan Road, Lakeempur, U.P. was issued.]
(iv) On 15.01.2023 at 10:39 P.M., at Kashipur- Rudrapur Highway, the Mobile Squad Authority intercepted the vehicle. The statement of the petitioner, who was the driver also, was recorded. The petitioner disclosed his address and mobile number along with the documents relating to the goods in transport i.e. the sale invoice.
(v) The mobile squad made physical verification of the goods and documents and they did not find any discrepancy in the goods and the vehicle. The goods were found as per the sale invoice.
(vi) Subsequent to it, on 19.01.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why a fine of Rs. 10,98,000/- be not imposed on him and the vehicle be not confiscated for transporting the goods with intent to evade the tax.
(vii) A notice was also issued to the owner of the goods, who did not reply. Therefore, on 07.02.2023, by the impugned order fine under Section 130 of the Act equal to the tax payable on the goods in lieu of confiscation was calculated.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was merely a transporter and was transporting the goods for fare; the petitioner was not in connivance, in any manner, with the owner of the goods. According to para 18 of the writ petition, it is duty of the registered person, who causes the movement of the goods to generate the e-way bill before the commencement of such movement in Form GST-EWB-01. The transporter of the goods is not liable to generate e-way bill; there has been no finding that the petitioner was in connivance with the owner of the goods, therefore, without any connivance against the petitioner, imposition of penalty is illegal and against the law. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not at fault; his vehicle has illegally been detained.
4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed their counter affidavit. Admittedly, the vehicle was intercepted on 15.01.1997 and the petitioner, who was driver also was not carrying the e-way bill, as required. According to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2, there was slightest discrepancy in the goods and the bill that was being carried by the vehicle. In para 8 & 16 of their counter affidavit, the respondent nos. 1 & 2 have stated as follows:-
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for generating e-way bills before the commencement of transportation of goods, the burden of proof on the taxpayer to establish lac....
Minor discrepancies in transport documentation do not warrant penalties under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, with general penalties appropriately applied instead under Section....
Minor deviations in transport routes without intent to evade tax do not warrant harsh penalties; authorities should impose general penalties for trivial lapses in compliance with the Goods and Servic....
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between non-compliance and intentional evasion of tax, and the applicability of penalty provisions based on the facts and circumsta....
The court upheld the penalty imposed under the WBGST Act, ruling that the petitioner failed to provide necessary documentation during the transport of goods.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
Under Section 15 of the Act, the value of the supply of goods would be the transaction value and a transaction value would be the price that is paid or payable for the supply of goods.Q
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intent to evade tax for the imposition of penalties under the UPGST Act, 2017, and the CGST Act, 2017.
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
