Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

Levy of GST with Penalty for want of E-WAY bill is not warranted when there is no intention to evade tax

Ganeshan Kalyani
Company's Machine Detained Without E-Way Bill; Appellate Authority Reduces Penalty to 20,000 for Procedural Lapse The case involves a company engaged in the supply of exempted goods, which sent a machine for repair without an e-way bill, believing it unnecessary due to the exemption status. The machine was detained, and a tax and penalty were imposed. The adjudicating authority initially upheld the tax and penalty, but the appellant argued there was no intent to evade tax, and the lack of an e-way bill was a procedural lapse. The Appellate Authority set aside the tax and penalty, recognizing no supply occurred, thus no GST was applicable, but imposed a reduced penalty of 20,000 for the procedural breach. (AI Summary)

The applicant M/S. NEVA PLANTATION PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ACSTE-CUM-PROPER OFFICER NORTH ENFORCEMENT ZONE PALAMPUR HP [2020 (2) TMI 892 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GST, HIMACHAL PRADESH]is engaged in supply of exempted goods. The applicant was not aware of the provision that GST registration is not required if the goods supplied are exempted. However the appellant had taken GST Registration and filling GST returns by showing exempted supplies.

The appellant had sent one machine named “Auto Clave” for repair to its supplier M/s. Pragati Laboratory Equipment under the cover of Delivery Challan. In the delivery challan, it was specifically mentioned that “not for Sale” and “Only for Repair.” Along with delivery challan, the appellant had also enclosed one certificate wherein the purpose of transportation of machine was mentioned as “…..Faulty Auto Cleve machine, which is send on below address for repair. This machine is not for sale……”. The appellant had also enclosed photocopy of purchase invoice of above machine along with the above documents. The machine was purchased from the above firm i.e. M/s Pragati Laboratory Equipment having declared taxable value of ₹ 3,30,000/- with IGST @ 18% amounting to ₹ 59,400/-.

The above machine along with conveyance was detained due to non-availability of E-way bill. A detention order served for the payment of IGST of ₹ 59,400/- i.e. 18% on ₹ 3,30,000/- with equal penalty of ₹ 59,400/-.

The appellant replied to the authority that he was under bonafide belief that since he is engaged in the supply of exempted goods, he is not required to issue e-way bill. He further submitted that since there is no intent to evade GST the detention of vehicle and levy of tax and penalty is also not warranted. The non-issuance if e-way bill in such a situation is only a procedural lapse and due to this there is no revenue loss to the Govt. 

On the other hand the adjudicating authority was of the view that e-way bill is required irrespective of the fact that there is no supply and the machine is sent only for repair. The adjudicating authority passed an order with tax demand of ₹ 59,400/- and penalty of ₹ 59,400/-.

Being aggrieved by the oder, the appellant prayed to the Ld. Additional Commissioner (Appeals) to set aside the impugned order confirming IGST demand of ₹ 59,400/- and imposing equal penalty of ₹ 59,400/- and allow the present appeal and refund the same amount deposited. Any other order deemed just & proper may also be passed.

Order:

Both the parties submission has been considered. It appears that the goods transported by the petitioner is only for the purpose of repair and that there is no supply. Since there is no supply, GST is not applicable. The appellant's failure to generate e-way bill is only a procedural lapse. The revenue is not under loss in the absence of e-way bill not generated for the movement of exempted goods. Hence, the order demand tax and equal penalty is set aside. 

The appellant has however contravened the provision of e-way bill and therefore a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- is levied u/s 122 of GST Act, 2017.

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