2023 (2) TMI 278 - HC - GST

Transporters Win: GST Penalty Quashed Due to Lack of Concrete Evidence on Multiple Goods Movement

M/s S.R. Sales 51/17 Maa Kripa Complex Rani Ganj Nayaganj Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others

HC allowed revision against penalty order under GST Act. Court found authorities' assumption about goods being transported twice into U.P. was ... Levy of penalty under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - demand based on mere presumptions - HELD THAT:- This is a case where the authorities had proceeded merely on presumption that goods which were being transported from Birur (Karnataka) to Kanpur (U.P.) were in fact brought by the petitioner from Nagpur into the State of U.P. using two trucks, one U.P.-78DT/6036 and U.P.-78CN/4605. It was only when the Truck No. U.P.-78CN/4605 was detained at Lakhanpur, Kanpur on 22.10.2018, it was found that it was carrying the e-way bill No. 161073493422 along with all the required documents but a presumption was drawn that the earlier Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036 had brought the goods from Nagpur to Kanpur (UP) using the same e-way bill. There is no material on record to demonstrate that goods were brought twice by the petitioner. The petitioner had brought on record the e-way bill through annexure no. 2 to writ petition which demonstrates that cosigner has sent the goods through the transporter and e-way bill was generated on 10.10.2018 which clearly reflects that goods originated from Birur and the transporter changed the truck at Amrawati and thereafter at Nagpur - the argument raised by learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted which is based on presumption and without any valid material on record. From perusal of the order impugned, it is found that the proceedings has been initiated solely on the basis of presumption that goods having been brought into the State using two different vehicles by same e-way bill. Once, it was found that the vehicle was carrying the required documents along with the e-way bill, no question arose for taking some other view. The revision is allowed. Issues:Challenge to penalty order under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and order passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)- I, State Goods and Service Tax, Kanpur.Analysis:The petitioner challenged a penalty order dated 02.11.2018 under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and an order dated 10.12.2018 by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)- I, State Goods and Service Tax, Kanpur. The petitioner, as the consignee, was transporting goods from Karnataka to U.P. through a series of trucks. The authorities detained the goods on the way, alleging that the petitioner had brought the goods into U.P. twice using different trucks. The petitioner argued that the penalty orders were based on incorrect assumptions regarding the transportation of goods. The Standing Counsel defended the penalty orders, claiming that the goods were indeed brought into U.P. twice by the petitioner. The discrepancy in the e-way bill numbers carried by the trucks was highlighted as evidence by the Standing Counsel.Upon review, the Court found that the authorities had presumed that the petitioner brought the goods into U.P. twice without substantial evidence. The Court noted that the e-way bill generated clearly showed the transportation route from Karnataka to U.P. through different trucks. The presumption made by the authorities based on the e-way bill numbers was deemed unfounded as there was no concrete proof that the goods were brought into U.P. twice by the petitioner. The Court rejected the arguments put forth by the Standing Counsel, emphasizing that the proceedings were initiated on presumptions without valid evidence. The orders dated 02.11.2018 and 10.12.2018 were deemed unsustainable and were set aside by the Court.In conclusion, the Court allowed the revision, setting aside the penalty orders. The Court directed the release of the deposited amount in favor of the petitioner within 15 days.