TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondents and perused the material on record. 3. The material on record indicates that the subject vehicle bearing registration No. AP-07-TC-1755 of the petitioner carrying the subject goods and travelling from Vijayawada to Kuntur was assigned e-way bill generated on 31.01.2024 at 8.03 p.m. which was valid upto 11.59 p.m. on 05.02.2024. During transit, there was a breakdown of the subject vehicle, as a result of which, the petitioner shifted the goods to another vehicle bearing No. KA-51-1AC-5539 and since there was a delay in this regard, the vehicle which was supposed to reach the destination on 05.02.2024 was not able to do so and was intercepted at Kollegala on 06.02.2024 at 09.51 a.m. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds general penalty payable by the petitioner. In support of its contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., - (2022) 14 SCC 157. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents - revenue would oppose the petition and submit that the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner possessed a valid e-way bill in relation to the subject vehicle bearing No. AP-07-TC-1755 which was valid upto 11.59 p.m. on 05.02.2024. However, due to breakdown of the subject vehicle, the goods had to be shifted to one more vehicle bearing No. KA-51-1AC-5539 and due to the delay in this process, the said veh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt and held as under:- 1. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to consider interference in the well-considered and well-reasoned order dated 2-6-2021, as passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Satyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd. v. CST [Satyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd. v. CST, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 698]. Rather, we are clearly of the view that the error, if any, on the part of the High Court, had been of imposing only nominal costs of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) on Respondent 2 of the writ petition, who is Petitioner 2 before us. 2. The consideration of the High Court in the order [Satyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd. v. CST,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....agitation on 4-1-2020 up to 8.30 p.m. preventing the movement of auto trolley for otherwise the goods would have been delivered on that day itself. He also does not dispute that 4-1-2020 was a Saturday, 5-1-2020 was a Sunday, and the next working day was only 6-1-2020." 4. The High Court has further found and, in our view, rightly so thus : (Satyam Shivam Papers case [Satyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd. v. CST, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 698] , SCC OnLine TS paras 47-48) "47. How the second 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. 48. In our considered opinion, there was no material before the second res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax without any evidence of such evasion of tax by the petitioner." (emphasis in original) 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 Petitioner 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 writ petitioner. However, as commented at the outset, the amount of costs as awarded by the High Court in this matter is rather on the lower side. Considering the overal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mposed by Petitioner 2. In the given circumstances, a further sum of Rs 59,000 (Rupees fifty-nine thousand) is imposed on the petitioners toward costs, which shall be payable to the writ petitioner within four weeks from today. This would be over and above the sum of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) already awarded by the High Court. 11. Having regard to the circumstances, we also make it clear that the State would be entitled to recover the amount of costs, after making payment to the writ petitioner, directly from the person(s) responsible for this entirely unnecessary litigation. 12. This petition stands dismissed, subject to the requirements foregoing. Compliance to be reported by the petitioners. 9. In view of the a....