2020 (1) TMI 1087 - HC - GST

Court rules in favor of petitioner due to errors in E-Way bill, quashes penalty.

M/s Jindal Pipes Limited Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the incorrect distance mentioned in the E-Way bill did not warrant the penalty imposed under the ... Service of SCN - aggrieved person - order served with the driver - Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - commencement of time limitation for filing of appeal - HELD THAT:- The order was served on the driver and, therefore, was definitely not served on a person who would have been aggrieved by the order and, therefore, the service on the driver was no service at all. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Incorrect distance mentioned in E-Way bill leading to penalty under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.2. Dispute regarding the service of the order for depositing penalty and tax amount.3. Interpretation of the limitation period for filing an appeal under section 107 of the Act.Analysis:1. The case involved a situation where certain goods were being transported from Ghaziabad to Ghazipur by a transporter, and an E-Way bill was prepared with an incorrect distance of 90 kilometers instead of the actual 980 kilometers. This discrepancy led to the interception and subsequent seizure of the goods by Mobile Squad Officials at Kanpur under section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner then deposited a substantial amount to release the goods, which included Central Goods and Service Tax, State Goods and Service Tax, and penalties.2. A key issue arose regarding the service of the order for depositing the penalty and tax amount. The petitioner argued that the order was served on the driver of the vehicle instead of the consignor or consignee, as required. Citing a relevant judgment, the petitioner contended that the order should have been communicated to a person likely to be aggrieved by it. The court agreed with the petitioner, ruling that serving the order on the driver was not sufficient as the driver was not the appropriate party to receive such communication. Consequently, the court held that the appeal, filed within the limitation period, should be entertained.3. The final issue revolved around the interpretation of the limitation period for filing an appeal under section 107 of the Act. The petitioner's appeal had been dismissed as being beyond the prescribed limitation. However, the court, after considering the arguments from both parties, concluded that since the order was not properly served on the relevant party, the appeal should be considered as filed within the limitation period. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the previous order, and directed the appeal to be entertained within the statutory limitation provided under section 107 of the Act.