$~9

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 8585/2022

NIRMAL KUMAR MAHAVEER KUMAR

......Petitioner

Through:

Mr Rahul Gupta with Mr Rakesh Kumar,

Advs.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX AND

ANOTHER

......Respondent

Through:

Mr Anurag Ojha, Sr Standing Counsel

for R-1.

Mr Gautam Narayan, ASC with Ms

Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv. for R-2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (Oral):

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.12.2021

passed by respondent no.2/Office of Appellate Authority (Delhi GST).

3. Respondent no.2 via the impugned order dated 31.12.2021, has

sustained

the

demand

raised

by

respondent

no.3/Assistant

Commissioner,Ward-112, Special Zone, Delhi,towards tax and penalty.

1/5

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003353

4. The amount demanded towards tax is Rs.2,33,100/-.An equal amount

has been also demanded towards penalty i.e., Rs.2,33,100/-.

4.1

Thus, as is obvious, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner, at the

rate of 100%.

4.2

In this regard, the respondent no. 3 appears to have taken recourse to

the provisions of Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,

2017 [in short “CGST Act”].

5. What has emerged from the record, is that the impugned demand was

raised against the petitioner on account of the fact that the e-way bill

generated had expired. In other words, when the goods were intercepted, the

e-way bill was no longer valid.

6. The record also shows, that the subject goods were being transported

from Guwahati to New Delhi.

7. The e-way bill was valid till 28.09.2020.

7.1

The subject goods were intercepted on 29.09.2020 at 3:40 AM, by

which time the e-way bill had expired.

8. On record, we have two e-way bills. These are marked as Annexure

P-1 and Annexure P-3, appended on pages 25 and 30 of the casefile

respectively.

9. A comparison of the two e-way bills, even according to Mr Gautam

Narayan, who appears for respondent nos.2 and 3, shows that the vehicles

were changed.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003353

9.1

The explanation given across the bar, was that since the earlier vehicle

had broken down, another vehicle was requisitioned for transporting the

goods.

10. It appears, that the petitioner did not ask for extension of time for

completion of journey. Resultantly, when the vehicle was intercepted, it was

found that the e-way bill generated had already expired.

11. It is on this account, that a showcause notice was issued to the

petitioner on 30.09.2020 in a prescribed form i.e.,Form GST MOV-07.

11.1 This was issued as required under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act.

12. The reason given for issuance of the show-cause notice was “goods

not covered by valid documents”. The proposed tax and penalty were also

indicated in the said show-cause notice.

12.1 However, in consonance with the principles of natural justice, the

petitioner was accorded seven days to file a reply with respect to the

proposed demand made towards tax and penalty, and to appear before the

concerned officer for a hearing on 07.10.2020.

13. We are informed that the petitioner paid the amount demanded

towards tax and penalty, as he was keen that the goods reached the

designated destination at the earliest.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003353

13.1 The demand was liquidated on the same date on which it was made

i.e., 30.09.2020.

14. Consequentially, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity to

demonstrate, that the goods could not reach their destination before the

expiry of the validity period of the e-way bill.

15. It is not in dispute,