Penalty Orders Set Aside: Court Upholds Petitioner's Right to Present Evidence of E-way Bill Compliance Under CGST Act

The HC allowed the petition challenging tax and penalty orders under CGST Act, 2017. The authorities had seized goods and levied penalties claiming E-way bill expiry, despite petitioner's contention that TMT Bars reached destination before deadline. The Court found that crucial evidence (toll plaza records showing vehicle location before E-way bill expiry) was not adequately considered. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remanded to the Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration, with directions to allow petitioner to submit additional evidence and objections.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking writ of certiorari to set aside orders demanding tax and penalty under CGST Act, 2017; Appeal against orders dismissing appeal and confirming Assessing Authority's order; Consideration of evidence regarding E-way bill expiry and goods reaching destination before deadline.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to challenge the orders dated 22.01.2020 and 15.11.2018 demanding tax and penalty under the Central GST Acts. The petitioner sold TMT Bars to a buyer and claimed that the goods reached the destination before the E-way bill expiry. The respondent issued a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, seizing the goods and levying tax and penalty despite the petitioner's contention of timely delivery.

2. The petitioner appealed the order dated 15.11.2018, but the Appellate Authority upheld the Assessing Authority's decision. The petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that crucial evidence, such as documents showing the vehicle passing through a Toll Plaza before the E-way bill expiry, was not considered by the authorities. The petitioner emphasized that the goods reached the destination point before the deadline.

3. The High Court analyzed the submissions and evidence presented by both parties. It noted that the documents proving the vehicle's location before the E-way bill expiry were not adequately considered by the authorities. To ensure fairness, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Prescribed Authority for re-consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to submit additional documents and objections for a fresh review.

4. In the final order, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders passed by the respondents and remanding the case for re-examination. The Court instructed the Prescribed Authority to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to present additional evidence and objections, emphasizing a fair and thorough review process in accordance with the law.

---