GST penalty reduced from Rs. 42 lakh to Rs. 25,000 for windmill company's e-way bill violations under Section 129(1)(a)

The GST Appeals Commissioner reduced penalty from Rs. 42,22,604 each under Central and Gujarat GST Acts to Rs. 25,000 each under Section 129(1)(a). The appellant, a registered windmill company, failed to generate e-way bills for stock transfers due to portal glitches. The Commissioner held that since stock transfers are non-taxable exempt supplies under Section 2(47), and the violation was inadvertent without mala fide intent, a reduced penalty was appropriate. The appeal was partially allowed, recognizing the procedural violation while considering the bona fide nature of the mistake.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Consideration of principles of natural justice and procedural lapses.
3. Classification of the goods as stock transfer and its implications on tax liability.
4. Applicability of Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST.
5. Intention of tax evasion and consideration of judicial precedents.
6. Voluntariness of the penalty payment.
7. Opportunity of being heard and adherence to natural justice.
8. Appropriateness of the penalty amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017:
The appellant was penalized under Section 129(1)(a) for discrepancies found during the interception of their conveyance. The adjudicating authority imposed penalties due to the absence of an E-way bill and discrepancies in the delivery challans. The appellant argued that the goods were stock transfers and not subject to GST, thus challenging the penalty's validity. The appellate authority found that the penalty imposed was excessive and reduced it to Rs. 25,000/- under both the Central and Gujarat GST Acts.

2. Consideration of Principles of Natural Justice and Procedural Lapses:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was issued without proper inquiry and without following the principles of natural justice. The appellate authority acknowledged that the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to be heard, which is a violation of natural justice. This was a significant factor in the decision to reduce the penalty.

3. Classification of the Goods as Stock Transfer and Its Implications on Tax Liability:
The appellant claimed that the goods were stock transfers within the state and thus not subject to GST. The appellate authority agreed that the goods were exempt from tax as they were stock transfers, which are considered non-taxable supplies under Section 2(47) of the GST Act. This classification influenced the reduction of the penalty.

4. Applicability of Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST:
The appellant referenced Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, which states that proceedings under Section 129 cannot be initiated if the consignment has an invoice and E-way bill. The appellate authority found this circular relevant but noted that the E-way bill was not generated at the time of dispatch, which justified the initial detention.

5. Intention of Tax Evasion and Consideration of Judicial Precedents:
The appellant argued there was no intention to evade tax and cited several judicial precedents advocating for a lenient approach in cases of minor procedural lapses. The appellate authority recognized the absence of mala fide intent and considered the precedents, leading to a reduction in the penalty.

6. Voluntariness of the Penalty Payment:
The appellant paid the penalty under protest, claiming coercion due to the urgent need to release the goods. The appellate authority acknowledged this context, which contributed to the decision to reduce the penalty.

7. Opportunity of Being Heard and Adherence to Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that they were not given a proper opportunity to be heard, violating natural justice. The appellate authority agreed, noting that the impugned order was issued without adequate hearing, which warranted a reduction in the penalty.

8. Appropriateness of the Penalty Amount:
The appellate authority found the initial penalty amount of Rs. 42,22,604/- each under CGST and SGST Acts to be excessive. Considering the nature of the violation and the appellant's bona fide mistake, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- under each Act.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority modified the impugned order, reducing the penalty to Rs. 25,000/- under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Rs. 25,000/- under the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The appeal was partially allowed, recognizing the procedural lapses, absence of tax evasion intent, and the nature of the goods as stock transfers.

---