2020 (8) TMI 869 - HC - GST

Detention of goods alongwith vehicle - E-way bill not present - levy of penalty u/s Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Immediately after noticing that a single consignment of 80 plywood sheets transporting under two invoices without e-way bill and also identifying it as fraud transaction in order to avoid e-way bills which are mandatory documents as per the CGST Act, the 3rd respondent by following the procedure contemplated under Section 129 (3) of CGST Act has issued the notice to the petitioner. Even the counsel for the petitioner also admits that the petitioner was transporting the goods without e-way bills, which will attract the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a), which ordains 100% penalty leviable on the value of goods, but pleads indulgence as imposing 100% penalty is on a higher side. The order passed the 3rd respondent is legally sustainable in accordance with law, which is not disputed the same warrants no interference by this Court - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure of plywood sheets under AP GST Act, imposition of 100% penalty for not having e-way bill, legality of order under CGST Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to challenge the seizure of 80 plywood sheets worth ?54,548 despite paying taxes, citing it as illegal under the AP GST Act. The petitioner, engaged in plywood business, inadvertently transported the goods without an e-way bill, resulting in the 3rd respondent imposing a 100% penalty on the tax already paid. The petitioner contended that the penalty was burdensome, especially during the pandemic, and requested its removal. The Govt. Pleader supported the penalty citing CGST Act provisions.

The Court examined Section 129 of the CGST Act, which mandates detention and seizure of goods for contravention of tax provisions. The 3rd respondent correctly applied this section due to the absence of an e-way bill for the goods, leading to the imposition of 100% penalty. The Court noted that the petitioner admitted the lack of e-way bill, making the penalty applicable. The Court found the 3rd respondent's order legally sound and in compliance with the law, thus dismissing the writ petition and advising the petitioner to pursue available remedies without costs.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the imposition of the 100% penalty under the CGST Act for transporting goods without an e-way bill. The Court emphasized the legal validity of the 3rd respondent's order, highlighting the petitioner's acknowledgment of the non-compliance. The dismissal of the writ petition signifies the Court's stance on the penalty imposition and the petitioner's recourse to appeal options provided by the law.