Judicial Review Clears Tax Dispute, Suspends Penalty and Allows Vehicle Release Based on Clerical Error Claim

HC finds no prima facie evidence of intentional tax evasion in CGST Act violation case. Court stays penalty order and directs release of confiscated goods and vehicle. Petitioner's argument of clerical error in E-way Bill vehicle type is considered. Further submissions are allowed from both parties before final determination.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The legality, propriety, and correctness of the order imposing penalty and confiscation of goods and vehicle based on alleged violation of CGST Act.

Summary:
The writ petition challenges an order imposing penalty and confiscating goods and a vehicle due to discrepancies in E-way Bills and the type of vehicle used for transportation. The petitioner argues that the mention of the wrong vehicle type was an oversight and not intentional tax evasion. Citing precedents, the petitioner asserts that there was no intent to evade tax. The court, prima facie, finds no intent to evade tax and grants time for further submissions. The operation of the penalty order is stayed until the next listing date, and the confiscated goods and vehicle are to be released.

Details for Each Issue:
The writ petition questions the legality of the order imposing a penalty and confiscating goods and a vehicle based on alleged violations of the CGST Act. The petitioner seeks to quash the notice and order under Section 129 of the Act and requests the release of the confiscated goods worth a specific amount, including IGST.

The proceedings leading to the impugned order were based on discrepancies in the E-way Bills regarding the vehicle type used for transportation. The petitioner used a common truck instead of the specified ODC vehicle type, leading to a violation of Section 138 (10) of the CGST Act. The explanation provided by the petitioner was deemed unsatisfactory, resulting in the finding of tax evasion.

The petitioner argues that the discrepancy in the E-way Bills was a clerical mistake and not intentional tax evasion. Citing a decision of the Gujrat High Court and a local court precedent, the petitioner contends that proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act should not be initiated for bona fide mistakes by taxpayers. The petitioner emphasizes the absence of intent to evade tax.

The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, finds no evidence of intent to evade tax by the petitioner. The court grants time for the Revenue to file a counter affidavit and for the petitioner to file a rejoinder affidavit, indicating that further consideration is required in the matter.

In light of the submissions made by the petitioner, the court stays the operation of the penalty order until the next listing date. The court also directs the release of the confiscated goods and vehicle under certain conditions deemed appropriate by the authorities.

---