2023 (11) TMI 456

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws →

2023 (11) TMI 456

X X X X Extracts X X X X

.... of basic iron and steel etc. In the normal course of business the petitioner dispatched the consignment of 30 ton of non-alloy steel in rolled round to M/s Hi-Tech Gears Limited, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan accompanying Invoice No. 232705612 dated 26.5.2023 as well as E-way Bill No. 281596024395 dated 26.5.2023 through Vehicle No. UP 94 T 6681 of Supersonic Carrier Private Limited. The said E-way was generated on 26.5.2023 and was valid up to 1.6.2023. During the onward journey from Maharastra to Rajasthan, the goods were passing through State of UP, on 28.5.2023 where at about 1:00-2:00 P.M. the vehicle was struck in mud at the side of road because of heavy load of consignment and thereafter with the help of crane the vehicle could be pulled out and after removing the break down by the mechanic the vehicle could be moved for its onward journey. On the intervening night of 2/3.6.2023, at around 10:00 A.M. the vehicle was intercepted and show cause notice was issued on 4.6.2023 which was replied by the petitioner accompanying the affidavit of driver of the vehicle however being not satisfied with the reply, the impugned order has been passed demanding a sum of Rs. 8,43,456/- as penalty. Aga....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....C.S.C. has supported the impugned orders and submitted that proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner under Section 138 (1) of the GST Act. He further submitted that the goods in question was not accompanying with the proper documents as prescribed under the Act as well as Rules framed thereunder as at the time of inspection, e-way bill accompanying with the goods has already been expired on 1.6.2023. He submitted that the petitioner has failed to justify for not filing the documentary evidence at the time of detention. He further submitted that there is violation of the provisions of Rule, therefore, penalty proceeding is justified. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the goods in question were moved from Maharastra to Rajasthan via U.P. and the goods in question were accompanying with e-tax invoice, G.R. and e-way bill valid up to 1.6.2023. It has been averred that the vehicle in question was struck in mud on the road side due to heavy load of consignment and with the help of crane the same could be pulled out and thereafter when the vehicle engine could n....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

.... goods in question could not reach to its destination due to the breakdown of vehicle as stated above and after repair, the vehicle was ready for its onward journey but the same was intercepted in the intervening night of 2/3.6.2023. Since the authorities below have not recorded a finding that there was any intention of the petitioner to evade the payment of tax, the penalty is not justified. 13. This Court in the case of M/s Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 2 Others [Writ Tax No. 603/2023, decided on 05.10.2023] has held as under:- 10. For invoking the proceeding under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, section 130 of the CGST Act was required to be read together, where the intent to evade payment of tax is mandatory, but while issuing notice or while passing the order of detention, seizure or demand of penalty, tax, no such intent of the petitioner was observed. Once the dealer has intimated the attending and mediating circumstances under which e-way bill of the purchasing dealer was cancelled, it was a minor breach. The authority could have initiated proceedings under section 122 of the CGST Act instead of proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act. Sect....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

.... Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Bhawani Traders Vs. State of U.P. & Another [Writ Tax No. 854/2023, decided on 24.07.2023] 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 Act. The E-way Bills being the documents of title to the goods were accompanying the goods hence, the conclusion of the revenue that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods is patently erroneous. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were liable to be initiated under Section 129(1)(a) and not 129(1)(b) as has been done in the present case. In view of the above, expressing our full agreement with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sahil Traders (Supra) we set aside the impugned penalty order dated 17.06.2023 passed in Form MOU- 09 under Section 129(1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The writ petition is allowed." 15. Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the case of M/s Raghav Metals Vs. State of Haryana & Others [CWP No. 25057/2021, decided on 14.03.2022] has held as under:- "9. Keeping in view these circum....

X X X X Extracts X X X X

X X X X Extracts X X X X

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

2023 (11) TMI 456