IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
M/S Hysum Steel, Represented By Its Partner, Ahmed Shakeer, Son Of Sri Haji M.S Moosabba - Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, (Appeals)-Mangaluru – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 8775 of 2024 (T-RES)
Decided On : 05-11-2025
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-
“ i) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a Writ or certiorari quashing the order passed by the Respondent No.1 in Form GST-APL-4, bearing Appeal No. IGST/122/2022-23 dated: 22.12.2023 under Section 107(11) of the KARNATAKA GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT , 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 herein marked as Annexure-A.
ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or direction in the nature of a Writ or certiorari quashing the penalty order passed by the Respondent No.2 levying penalty on the petitioner in FORM GST MOV 09 bearing No. CTD/CENR/- 10MNG/VIG-10/2022-23 dated: 01.02.2023 herein marked as Annexure-B.
iii) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner /consigner purchased the subject goods from M/S.VRKP Sponge and Power Plant LLP, Bellary, who raised Tax invoice, E-invoice and e-way bill dated 29.01.2023 and entrusted the subject goods to a transporter to transport the same in vehicle No.KA-20 AB-4986 from Bellary to the premises of the petitioner at No.48, Kannur, Mangalore. The subject goods were loaded on to the vehicle on 29.01.2023 and left for its destination at Kannur, Mangalore, duly accompanied by Tax invoice, E-invoice, e-way bill and other documents. It is contended that the driver of the vehicle inadvertently and without any malafide intention missed the route and drove the subject vehicle and goods to Moodabidire on 31.01.2023, when he stopped by the roadside for the purpose of having refreshments, at that time, the 2nd respondent intercepted the vehicle and inspected the same and recorded the statement of the driver by issuing Form-GST MOV-01 dated 31.01.2023, pursuant to which, physical verification of the conveyance and goods were conducted, resulting in issuance of notice under Section 129 (3) of the KGST Act by the 2nd respondent, who detained the conveyance and goods.
4. The petitioner filed his objections dated 01.02.2023 interalia disputing the allegations made by the respondents that there was a deviation in the route by the vehicle and goods, in pursuance of which, the impugned penalty order dated 01.02.2023 was passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner who made payment and filed an appeal before the 1st respondent – appellate authority who dismissed the appeal by passing the impugned order dated 22.12.2023, aggrieved by which, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition placing reliance upon the Circular No.64/38/2018 – GST dated 14.09.2018 issued by the respondents in relation to procedure for interception of conveyances for inspection of goods in movement, detention, release and confiscation of such goods and conveyances etc., as well as the following judgments;
(i) The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax vs. M/s.Transways India Transport – W.A.No.854/2022 dated 24.06.2024;
(ii) Kamalesh Steels vs. Deputy State Tax Officer – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 375 (Telengana);
(iii) R.K.Motors vs. State Tax Officer – (2019) 102 taxmann.com 337 (Madras).
5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the aforesaid Circular dated 14.09.2018, which reads as under:-
Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST
CBEC/2016/03/2017-GST
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs
GST Policy Wing
***
New Delhi, Dated the 14th September, 2018
To,
The Principal Chief Commissioners / Chief Commissioners / Principal Commissioners / Commissioners of Central Tax (All)/The Principal Directors General /Directors General (All)
Madam/Sir,
Subjec
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....
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 documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
The imposition of penalties for minor discrepancies in tax-related documents without intent to evade tax is not justified under the CGST/SGST Acts.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
The central legal point established is that penalty should not be imposed for minor discrepancies in the E-way bill, as clarified by the circular.
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.
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.