Levy of penalty for non-ownership of goods challenged where e-way bills accompanied goods, relief granted directing deposit-based release under appropriate provision.

Levy of penalty was challenged on the basis that petitioner was treated not to be owner of seized goods and penalty under Section 129(1)(b) was imposed despite accompanying e-way bills. The reasoning accepted that intention to evade tax is a pre-requisite for a penalty under Section 129 and that documents of title (e-way bills) indicated ownership, rendering the revenue conclusion of non-ownership erroneous; therefore penalty proceedings should have been under Section 129(1)(a) permitting release on deposit. Consequent order set aside and respondent directed to pass fresh order applying Section 129(1)(a) benefit to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the penalty order passed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, regarding the ownership of goods during transit and the imposition of penalty for alleged tax evasion.

Ownership of Goods Issue:
The writ petition challenged a penalty order imposed on the petitioner for not being considered the owner of goods in transit, despite having necessary documents like tax invoice, e-way bill, and bilty issued in the petitioner's name as the consignor. The petitioner argued that there was no intention to evade tax, and due to the perishable nature of the goods, they were willing to deposit the penalty under protest. The petitioner relied on a previous court decision that applied directly to the case. The revenue representative opposed the petition, maintaining that the penalty was rightly imposed, but acknowledged that intent to evade tax is essential for such penalties. The court found that the E-way Bills, as title documents, accompanied the goods, indicating ownership by the petitioner. Consequently, the court set aside the penalty order under Section 129(1)(b) and directed a fresh order under Section 129(1)(a) in favor of the petitioner.

Assessment Order Issue:
The counsel for the petitioner mentioned that Respondent No.2 had already passed an assessment order granting the petitioner benefits under Section 129(1)(a). The court granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge this assessment order through available legal remedies.

In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad set aside the penalty order against the petitioner and directed a fresh order granting the petitioner benefits under Section 129(1)(a) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner was also allowed to challenge the assessment order if desired.

---