Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
M/s. Plaunshe - Appellant
Vs.
Additional Commissioner Of Commercial Tax Officer - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19487 of 2024 (T-RES)
Decided On : 14-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for setting aside earlier orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts regarding the transportation of goods and penalties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. grounds of appeal and previous judgments. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. discussion on inspection and documentation requirements. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of CERTIORARI setting aside the Order dated 14.06.2024 bearing No.ZAC/03/BNG-5/SMR-38/2024-25 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure A).
ii. Quash the entire proceedings pursuant to Notice dated 22.05.2024 bearing No. ZAC/03/BNG-5/SMR- 38/2024-25 issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure E).
iii. Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the impugned material on record will indicate that on 17.01.2022, the goods of the petitioner were being transported from Delhi to Bangalore, in the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01/AE-3323, when they were intercepted on 18.01.2022 by respondent No.3, who initiated proceedings under Section 129 (3) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017and passed an order dated 20.01.2022 levying CGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738/- and SGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 - the First Appellate Authority, who passed an order dated 09.06.2022 allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner is as under:
"ORDER UNDER SECTION 107(11) OF THE KGST & CGST ACT, 2017
This appeal is filed under section 107(1) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 (herein afterwards referred to as 'Act') by M/s. PLAUNSHEE, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') against the order dated: 20.01.2022 passed under Section 129 (3) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017 and read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 by the Commercial Tax Officer, (Vigilance)- 11, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") and levying CGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738-00 and SGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738-00 totaling penalty U/s. 129(1)(a) of the KGST & CGST Act of Rs.6,75,476-00. The appeal is filed in time and hence admitted for hearing.
2. In response to the notice issued Sri Tushar Jalan, Tax Consultants and DAR of the appellant appeared before me and argued the case as reiterated in the grounds of appeal and requested to allow the appeal. Before I proceed to analyze the issue and give my findings, the facts of the case and grounds or appeal are as follows.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The dealer is a dealer in various Flooring Products.
2. The dealer was carrying Laminated Floorings moving from New Delhi to Bangalore in vehicle No. KA01AE3323.
3. The Vehicle was carrying a valid Tax Invoice vide No. LKPL/21-22/1830 & E-Way Bill vide No. 7212 3489 9023.
4. The vehicle was apprehended at Horamavu at 1115 AM on 18.01.2022 by Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance)-11.
5. Form GST MOV - 01 was issued by the said Officer at 11.55AM on 18.01.2022.
6. Form GST MOV - 04 & Form GST MOV - 06 was also issued on 19.01.2022, wherein it is alleged that the goods is different.
7. Form GST MOV - 04 & Form GST MOV - 06 was also issued on 19.01.2022, wherein it is alleged that the goods are delivered in unrelated place.
8. Form GST MOV -7 was issued on 19.01.2022.
9. In response to GST MOV-07, left with no choice the dealer made the payment of CGST & SGST Penalty of Rs.3,37,738/- each, on 19.01.2022 as demanded by the Officer vide CPIN220129000234779 subsequently filed GST DRC-07 vide ARN : ZD29012200092T.
10. The vehicle was released on 19.01.022 after payment of Penalty as demanded by the Officer.
11. The concerned Officer issued the Order bearing date on 20.01.2022 & served upon us on 24.01.2022.
GROUNDS OF APP
Minor documentation discrepancies do not imply intent to evade tax, and valid transport documents render penalty imposition inappropriate.
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 errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
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 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.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
Minor procedural lapses in compliance with tax regulations should not attract severe penalties, especially when there is no intent to evade tax.
The imposition of penalties for minor discrepancies in tax-related documents without intent to evade tax is not justified under the CGST/SGST Acts.
Expiration of an e-Way Bill during transit does not invoke penalties under Section 129 without evidence of intent to evade taxes.
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
