TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 5,58,286/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 8% per month. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 is a registered firm having GSTN No. 09AIPPJ5474K1ZX. The petitioner - firm is engaged in the business of trading cigarette, pan-masala & food spices. In its normal course of business, the petitioner received an order of supply from one Vaishya Distributors, Nashik (Maharashtra). In pursuance thereof, invoice no. 1406 dated 18.11.2022 was generated. The goods were supposed to be sent through railway. The goods were intercepted on 18.11.2022 outside the railway station, which were loaded in e-rickshaw and confiscated by the GST officials. Thereafter, on 19.11.2022, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner - firm imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,58,286/-. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and also deposited a penalty amount; whereupon, the goods were released. The Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 confirming the penalty under section 129(1) of the SGST Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2023 confirming the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Company & Another Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ Tax No. 600/2022, decided on 17.05.2022] and M/s Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ Tax No. 603/2023, decided on 05.10.2023] as well as the judgement of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in M/s Raghav Metals Vs. State of Haryana & Others [CWP No. 25057/2021, decided on 14.03.2022]. He prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that at the time of interception of the goods outside the railway station, no documents were produced and therefore, the goods were rightly confiscated and thereafter, show cause notice was issued and impugned orders have been passed as there was a contravention of the provisions of the SGST Act and the Rules framed there-under. Therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioners. He further submits that the case laws cited by the petitioners are on the fact of those case where the intention to evade payment of tax has been noticed. He further submits that in those cases, the goods were accompanied with proper documents, but in the case in hand, at the time of int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Mov 7 dated 24.11.2022 of Rs. 558286 vide CPN No. 22110900470510 dated 24.11.2022." 9. The petitioner also deposited the penalty as mentioned in the notice on 24.11.2022 itself, but the authorities have passed the order under section 129(3) of SGST Act on 25.11.2022 confirming the demand and penalty. The record further reveals that at the time of issuing notice or passing the order under section 129(3) of the SGST Act, not a word has been whispered with regard to intention to evade payment of tax. 10. Against the order passed under section 129(3) of the SGST Act, an appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, but by the impugned order, a fact has been noticed at internal page no. 4 that the owner of the goods, along with documents, were inside the railway station for getting the Railway Receipt as the number of the Railway Receipt is to be mentioned in the e-way bill, Part - B. Once this fact was brought, from the date of interception till the passing of the impugned order, not a word has been whispered by either of the authorities below that there was any intention of the petitioner to evade payment of tax. 11. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner, after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that:- "As notices hereinabove, on the facts of this case, it has precisely been found that there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioners to evade tax and rather, the goods in question could not be taken to the destination within time for the reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioners." 13. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 600 of 2022 (M/s Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Company & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others) quashed the levy of penalty under section 129 of the GST Act with heavy costs upon the Revenue for abuse of their powers. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case as well as the law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, as aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed. 13. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Bhawani Traders (supra) has held as under:- "He, however, could not dispute the fact that intention to evade tax is a per-requisite for imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the A....