Back
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Sheel Nagu, Anand Pathak, JJ.
SAI RUBBER WORKS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
W. P. No. 13142 of 2021
Decided On : 20-10-2021
E-way Bill - Tax Invoice Error - M.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - SGST Act - CGST Act - [Section 68 of SGST Act, Section 129 of CGST Act, Section 107 of SGST Act, Section 126(1) of CGST Act] - The court discussed the provisions of section 68 of the SGST Act, section 129 of the CGST Act, and section 107 of the SGST Act. The court emphasized the requirement for carrying documents during transportation and the consequences of clerical errors in filling up forms. The court also considered the provisions for appeal and the limitation period for filing an appeal under the SGST Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company supplied goods to a recipient in Madhya Pradesh but erroneously generated the Tax Invoice in the name of a unit registered in Uttar Pradesh. The goods were detained and a penalty was imposed. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed on the grounds of delay and lack of opportunity for personal hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of delay and that the petitioner had been given the opportunity to represent their case through written submissions and emails. The court also noted that the authorities had considered the petitioner's submissions and reached a conclusion about tax evasion.
Issues: The issues involved the erroneous Tax Invoice, the dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of delay, and the opportunity for personal hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of delay and that the petitioner had been given the opportunity to represent their case through written submissions and emails. The court also emphasized the compliance with the provisions of the SGST Act and the CGST Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as lacking in merits.
ORDER ANAND PATHAK, J. – The instant petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs : “In prevailing facts and circumstances it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble Court that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and further the impugned order dated 28-11-2020 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 2-7-2019 (Annexure P/2) may be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.”
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Waste Paring and Scrap or Rubber and Powder and granules obtained therefrom. Petitioner is duly registered with the GST Department at Maharashtra having GSTN -27AABHS5612R1ZM being manufacturer of rubber related goods. Petitioner is also involved in transportation of goods to various States. On various occasions, petitioner supplied goods to M/s Prakash Asphalting and Tolls Highway India Ltd. which is registered separately with GST at State of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh having two separate GST Numbers for both the States.
3. In the case in hand, petitioner had to supply the goods to M/s Prakash Asphalting and Tolls Highway India Ltd. in State of Madhya Pradesh but inadvertently and erroneously generated the Tax Invoice in the name of unit registered at Uttar Pradesh. During transportation of goods, respondent No. 3 detained the goods as well as vehicle of the transporter on the ground that place of supply mentioned in the E-way bill is different from the actual place of receiver and therefore, imposed penalty alleging suppression of sales and seized vehicle of the transporter vide order dated 2-7-2019 by the office of Joint Commissioner, Anti Evasion Bureau, Gwalior (Commercial Tax Department of Madhya Pradesh).
4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2-7-2019, petitioner preferred appeal under section 107 of M.P. Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the SGST Act”) on 16-12-2019 before appellate authority on different grounds as referred in the appeal. Appeal was barred by time because period of limitation to file first appeal according to section 107 of the SGST Act is three months and the period for which the delay may be condoned is 30 days from the expiry of normal period of limitation. Thus, appeal was dismissed on delay as well as on merits. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that section 68 of the SGST Act read with 138A of the of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding Rs. 50,000/- to carry a copy of documents viz. Invoice/Bill of Supply/Delivery Challan/Bill of Entry and Valid E-way Bill in physical or electronic form for verification. Since he was carrying all documents, therefore, provisions of section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the CGST Act”) are not invocable and therefore, proceedings initiated under section 129 of the CGST Act by the respondents was illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon section 126(1) of the CGST Act to submit that no penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements or any omission or mistake in documentation can be imposed and since mistake was made without fraudulent intent or gross negligence, therefore, authority did not consider the case in correct perspective and caused illegality.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that error which petitioner done at the time of generation of e-way bill was procedural mistake but it was done without fraudulent intent or gross negligence. He referred circular Dated 14-9-2018 passed by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Custom.
8. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority did not provide any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the SGST Act and the CGST Act, including the consequences of clerical errors in filling up fo....
High courts shall not exercise writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory appellate remedy exists, especially where procedures like personal hearings were completed. Judicial intervention is lim....
The court emphasized the mandatory nature of granting an opportunity of hearing as per the statutory provisions of the CGST Act and reiterated that the availability of an alternate remedy does not ba....
An order assessing tax cannot be sustained if the proper officer denies an effective opportunity of hearing, as mandated by Section 75(4) of the WBGST Act, 2017.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opportunity of hearing must be comprehensive and cannot be short-circuited, and it must provide a real and meaningful opportunity for a fa....
An adverse decision must be accompanied by an effective opportunity of hearing as mandated by statutory provisions; failure to do so renders the decision invalid.
The court affirmed that timelines in tax appeal processes are directory, not mandatory, allowing for flexibility under circumstances of procedural injustice.
The rejection of refund claims without providing an opportunity of being heard was a violation of the proviso to sub-rule (3) of rule 92 of the CGST Rules and the principles of natural justice, rende....
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.
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
