TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court quashes order, cites natural justice violation. Fresh notice directed, no mention of mens rea.</h1> <h3>Bansal Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner State Goods & Service Tax & Ors.</h3> Bansal Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner State Goods & Service Tax & Ors. - [2020] 72 G S.T.R. 392 (Cal), 2020 (34) G.S.T.L. 63 (Cal.) Issues Involved:1. Detention by the proper officer.2. Timing of e-waybill generation.3. Server malfunction affecting waybill generation.4. Presence of other necessary documents.5. Proper notice for penalty imposition.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Detention by the Proper Officer:The petitioner challenged the detention of goods on the grounds that the detention was not carried out by a proper officer. The court examined Section 129 of the WBGST Act, 2017, which mandates that any goods transported in contravention of the Act are liable to detention or seizure by a proper officer. The court concluded that the officer who detained the goods was indeed a proper officer under the Act.2. Timing of E-waybill Generation:The petitioner argued that the e-waybill was generated before the detention order was passed on March 25, 2019. The court noted that the vehicle was intercepted at 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 2019, and the e-waybill was generated at 5:10 p.m. The court found that the petitioner had made efforts to comply with the e-waybill requirements, but the vehicle was detained before the e-waybill was generated.3. Server Malfunction Affecting Waybill Generation:The petitioner contended that the server malfunction of the GST Portal prevented the timely generation of the e-waybill. The court observed that the respondents did not sufficiently counter the petitioner's claim regarding the server malfunction. The court emphasized that the specific allegation about the server being non-functional before 4:25 p.m. on March 23, 2019, was not addressed by the respondents.4. Presence of Other Necessary Documents:The petitioner argued that all necessary documents, including the invoice, challan, and insurance policy, were present with the goods, indicating no intent to evade tax. The court agreed, noting that the presence of these documents negated any mens rea for tax evasion. The court referred to previous judgments to support the argument that imposition of penalty requires mens rea and culpability for tax evasion.5. Proper Notice for Penalty Imposition:The petitioner claimed that the penalty was imposed without proper notice and opportunity for a hearing. The court examined Section 129(3) and (4) of the WBGST Act, 2017, which require notice and an opportunity for hearing before imposing a penalty. The court found that the notice was served only on the driver, not the petitioner, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the notice must be served on the person on whom the penalty is to be imposed, and an opportunity for a hearing must be provided.Conclusion:The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated April 03, 2019, due to the violation of principles of natural justice. The court directed the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Goods and Services Tax to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, grant an opportunity for a hearing, and pass a reasoned order. The court did not delve into the aspect of mens rea at this stage, leaving it open for the concerned officer to decide. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
