2023 (9) TMI 50 - HC - GST

Transporting Goods Across State Lines: GST Penalty Overturned for Lack of Substantive Violation Under Rule 138

J.K. Cement Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others

HC allowed writ petition challenging GST penalty for not carrying e-way bill during transit through U.P. Court found penalty unjustified as goods ... Detention of goods - goods in question was not carrying e-way bill which was required to be carried while the goods were in transport - Section 129 of GST Act - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the goods were originated from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and its destination was Panna, Madhya Pradesh. It is also admitted by all the authorities below that during transportation of the goods, tax invoices & G.R. are genuine. It is further admitted that the State of Madhya Pradesh has issued a notification dated 24.4.2018 mentioning therein 11 items for which only the e-way bills are required during transport and other items were exempted from accompanying the e-way bill. The respondent authorities have accepted that the goods were originating from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and to be terminated at Panna, Madhya Pradesh. On perusal of the impugned order it is also found that it is categorically mentioned that the origination as well as termination of the goods in question was in State of Madhya Pradesh meaning thereby the authorities are of the view that the goods were not to be unloaded in the State of UP or any intention to avoid tax. However, mainly on the ground of some small technical fault for not carrying the e-way bill, the penalty ought not to have been levied in the absence of any discrepancy in document accompanying the goods. In view of above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The impugned orders are set aside. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner during pendency of the present litigation, shall be refunded to him within a period of 20 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned - Petition allowed. Issues involved: Entertaining writ petition due to absence of GST Tribunal in U.P., challenge to orders imposing penalty under GST Act for not carrying e-way bill during transit in U.P.Summary:- The petitioner, a registered company engaged in manufacturing and sale of goods, challenged orders imposing penalty for not carrying e-way bill during transit in U.P. despite goods originating from and destined for Madhya Pradesh.- Petitioner argued goods were exempt from e-way bill requirement in Madhya Pradesh as per notification, and all necessary documents were present during transit.- Respondent contended e-way bill was mandatory for goods in transport, and the relevant notification applied to Madhya Pradesh, not U.P.- Court acknowledged goods' origin and destination in Madhya Pradesh, genuine documents, and exemption from e-way bill requirement in Madhya Pradesh.- Noted goods had to briefly pass through U.P. on route from Gwalior to Panna, Madhya Pradesh.- Emphasized that penalty was unjustified as goods were not intended for unloading in U.P., and technical fault of missing e-way bill should not lead to penalty when no discrepancies were found in accompanying documents.- Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, impugned orders were set aside, and any deposited amount during litigation was to be refunded within 20 days.