Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Higher penalty cannot be imposed u/s 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act if owner of goods comes forward to pay penalty

Bimal jain
Revenue Department Can't Impose Penalty Under Section 129(1)(b) if Owner Willing to Pay, Says Court The Allahabad High Court ruled that the Revenue Department cannot impose a penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act if the owner of the detained goods is willing to pay the penalty. In the case involving a petitioner whose goods were detained, the court found that the petitioner was indeed the owner, as evidenced by valid documents like a tax invoice and e-way bill. The court determined that the penalty should have been assessed under Section 129(1)(a) instead, and thus set aside the penalty order under Section 129(1)(b), instructing the Revenue Department to issue a new order. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in M/S BHAWANI TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - 2023 (7) TMI 1291 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTheld that if the assessee comes forward and is willing to pay the penalty for the detained goods, the Revenue Department cannot issue penalty order under section 129(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the CGST Act”).

Facts:

M/s. Bhawani Traders (“the Petitioner”) was the owner of the goods which were detained by the Revenue Department during the transit and subsequently, the Petitioner was served with a penalty order under section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act by considering the Petitioner not as owner of the goods in transit. However, the Petitioner produced the valid documents such as a tax invoice, e-way bill, which were all issued in his name as the consignor.

Aggrieved by the Penalty order the Petitioner filed a writ before the Allahabad High Court and contended there was no intention to evade tax and the Petitioner was willing to deposit the penalty under protest under Section 129(1)(a) of the CGST Act, in order to release the goods.

The Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not the owner of the goods and that the penalty was rightly imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.

Issue:

Whether the Revenue Department can invoke penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act if the owner of the goods comes forward and is willing to pay penalty?

Held:

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court inM/S BHAWANI TRADERS VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER - 2023 (7) TMI 1291 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT held as under:

  • Observed that, the goods were duly accompanied by the tax invoice, e-way bill and bilty issued in the name of the Petitioner which proves that the Petitioner was the owner of the goods attached during the transit.
  • Noted that, the conclusion of the Revenue Department that the Petitioner was not the owner of the goods is patently erroneous. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were liable to be initiated under section 129(1)(a) and not 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act.
  • Set aside the penalty order under section 129(1)(b) of the CGST Act and directed the Revenue to pass a fresh order treating.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles