TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Vehicle search penalty quashed as E-way bill Part B completed during inspection under Section 129</h1> The HC allowed the petition challenging penalty proceedings under Section 129 of HGST/CGST Act. The petitioner's vehicle was searched and Part B of the ... Levy of penalty order and pre-deposit amount equal to penalty - Part B of the E way bill as required under Section 68(3) of the Act, 2017 and Rule 138 (1), (2), (3) of the Rules, 2017 not submitted - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case, at the time of search of the vehicle of the petitioner, Part B was not filled up but the time driver filled up Part B in the presence of the Officer and hence there was no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 129 of HGST/CGST Act should not have been initiated, as per circular dated 14.09.2018 (P-6). The object of circular dated 14.09.2018 was that in case of circumstances as detailed in the circular, which were procedural in nature and there no intention of misleading the transfer of goods, the proceedings should not have been initiated under Section 129 of HGST/CGST Act. Apart from not mentioning number of the vehicle in Part B, all the other documents have been shown by the driver of the vehicle. The present petition is allowed. Issues involved: Petitioner's challenge to order seizing goods due to incomplete E-Way Bills.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Seizure of Goods due to Incomplete E-Way Bills The petitioner, a company, sold electrical goods but faced seizure of goods during transportation due to incomplete Part B of E-Way Bills. The standby staff, not fully trained, generated the E-Way Bills incompletely. The petitioner, a GST-registered entity with a substantial turnover, maintained proper accounts and promptly paid taxes. Despite responding to a Show Cause Notice, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer imposed a hefty pre-deposit penalty. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed, leading to the writ petition challenging the penalty.Issue 2: Legal Arguments The respondent argued the violation of CGST/HGST Act and Rules due to incomplete E-Way Bills, emphasizing the importance of carrying valid documents during transportation. The petitioner cited a circular allowing for release of goods on nominal penalty for technical errors. The respondent contended that neither the transporter nor the supplier completed Part B of the E-Way Bill as required by law.Issue 3: Court's Analysis The Court referred to the circular permitting release of goods for certain technical errors, including incomplete vehicle numbers in E-Way Bills. Despite the initial omission, the driver rectified the error in the presence of the Officer, indicating no malicious intent. Considering the procedural nature of the error and lack of intention to mislead, the Court held that Section 129 proceedings should not have been initiated.Conclusion The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the penalty order and imposing a nominal penalty of Rs. 500 for the incomplete vehicle number, in line with the circular's provisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the absence of fraudulent intent in determining the appropriate penalty for technical errors in E-Way Bills.This summary captures the key details and legal analysis of the judgment regarding the seizure of goods due to incomplete E-Way Bills, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Court's decision based on the relevant legal provisions and circulars.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
