AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 1122
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of jurisdiction, ultra virus, arbitrary, unfair and unreasoned. iii) To quash and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority i.e. the Addl. Commissioner (Appeals) GST, dated 24.05.2022 (Ann.-7). iv) Any other suitable order or direction, which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favor of the Petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a dealer of Iron items and conducting his business from Deshnok, District Bikaner and the petitioner-Firm is registered under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST Act, 2017') having registration No. 08BFWPR2595M1Z8. During the course of its business, the petitioner purchased goods amounting to Rs. 9,43,993/- i.e. Iron Channel, Beam and angles from R.K. Steels, Jaipur on 25.02.2021 and an e-way bill No. 781176882246 (valid upto 27.02.2021) was generated accordingly at 05:03 a.m. on 25.02.2021, whereafter, the said goods were loaded in a truck, along with the goods of one other Mahaveer Iron Store by the transporter and the v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lable during night of 27.02.2021, it was decided to unload the truck the next morning. 3.2. Learned counsel also submits that the delay occurred was beyond the control of both the petitioner as well as the driver, thus on a mere delay of 44 minutes, the tax and penalty in question was imposed upon the petitioner; in furtherance, the e-way bill is to protect the revenue of the Government, and since the GST was already levied upon the goods, no loss of revenue had been incurred by the Government. 3.3. Learned counsel further submits that in the given circumstances and as per the conduct of the petitioner, the penalty in question could not have been imposed under Section 129 (3) of CGST Act, 2017, and thus, the impugned orders are arbitrary and not justified in law. 3.4. In support of such submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Shree Govind Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat (R/Special Civil Application No. 23835 of 2022 decided on 01.12.2022). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the respondents submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ector, GST Department, wherein it was found that the e-way bill had expired 44 minutes ago, and accordingly, the proceedings in question were initiated and the impugned notice as well as the impugned order under Section 129 (3) of the CGST Act, 2017 was issued on 01.03.2021, whereafter an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 24.05.2022 by the appellate authority. 7. This Court is conscious of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Ors. vs. Stayam Shivam Papers Private Ltd. & Ors. SLP (c) No. 21132/2021, decided on 12.01.2022, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder: "6. Having said so, the High Court has set aside the levy of tax and penalty of Rs. 69,000/- (Rupees Sixty-nine Thousand) while imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), payable by the Petitioner No. 2 to the writ Petitioner within four weeks. 7. The analysis and reasoning of the High Court commends to us, when it is noticed that the High Court has meticulously examined and correctly found that no fault or intent to evade tax could have been inferred against the w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such penalty; (c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods. (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and thereafter, pass an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) (4) No penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. (5) On payment of amount referred in sub-section(1), all proceedings in respect of the notice specified in subsection( 3) shall be deemed to be concluded. (6) Where the person transporting any goods or the owne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Daya Shaker Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Writ Petition No. 12324 of 2022, on 10.08.2022), as hereunder: "21. In view of aforesaid stand of parties, it is clear that the E-way Bill of the petitioner was valid upto 19/05/2022 and truck was intercepted on 20/05/2022 at Dindori at 4.35 A.M. The specific contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no element of tax evasion, fraudulent intent and negligence on his part was not rebutted by learned counsel for the respondents. It is apt to reproduce the relevant para of judgment of Telangana High Court in (2021) 5 GSTJ Online 174 (TG) Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner, ST & others (W.P. No. 9688 of 2020), which reads as under :- "42. How the 2nd respondent could have drawn an inference that petitioner is evading tax merely because the E-way Bill has expired is also nowhere explained in the counter-affidavit. In our considered opinion, there was no material before the 2nd respondent to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is even less than one day and extension could not be made and petitioner submits that delay of few hours even less than a day of expiry of the validity of the tenure of the E-way Bill was not deliberate and willful and was due to break down of the vehicle in question and there was no intention of any evasion of tax on the part of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner in support of his contention has relied on an unreported decision of the Supreme Court dated January 12, 2022 passed in Special Leave Appeal (C) No(s). 21132/2021 (Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited & Anr.). 4. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent could not make out a case against the petitioner that the aforesaid violation was willful and deliberate or with a specific material that the intention of the petitioner was for evading tax. 5. Considering the submission of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition being WPA No. 11085 of 2021 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of the appellate authority dated March 18, 2021 as well as the order of the adjudicating authority dated September 11, 2019 and a....