9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1237 - HC - GSTValidity of Seizure Order u/s 129 (1) of UPGST Act, 2017 - penalty u/s 129 (3) of the Act - goods not accompanied with E-way bill - petitioner has submitted that since the respondent No. 2 has directed for furnishing/presentation of the E-way bill, the same has been downloaded from the official portal on 24.3.2018 at 7 30 PM i.e. just after half an hour from detention/interception of the vehicle and there is no malafide intent. Held that - The writ petition clearly indicates the charge of IGST at the rate of 18% on value of the goods has been paid - even the net value which includes the value of the goods as well as tax charged has been duly mentioned by the transporter while issuing the goods receipt. There is no other reason except of non submission of the E-way bill at the time of interception of the vehicle in question. We have also perused the E-way bill which has been generated by the person Incharge of the vehicle immediately within half an hour from the time of detention/interception of the vehicle - We failed to understand as to why the authority has not considered all the aforesaid relevant facts and has arrived to a conclusion that the transaction in question was not a bonafide transaction and has seized the goods and vehicle. Admittedly, till 31st March, 2018 it was not mandatory to download the E-way bill from the official portal. We find the substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that only with effect from 1st April, 2018 the requirement of downloading of the E-way bill is compulsory - thus, the goods were bonafidely dispatched and are travelled from Raipur for the delivery at Basti are illegally and arbitrarily detained by the respondent No.2. The order passed under Section 129 (1) of the Act passed on 25.3.2018 and the show cause notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the Act are hereby set aside - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to seizure order under UPGST Act, 2017 and show cause notice for proposed penalty. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered proprietorship firm dealing in iron and steel items, challenged a seizure order and show cause notice issued under the UPGST Act, 2017. The goods in question were purchased from a seller in Chattisgarh and being transported to the petitioner's place of business in U.P. The truck carrying the goods was intercepted in U.P. by a tax officer who was not satisfied with the accompanying documents, specifically the absence of an E-way bill. The officer estimated the value of the goods and seized them. The petitioner argued that the E-way bill requirement had been waived off until 31st March, 2018, and they had downloaded the E-way bill immediately after the interception, demonstrating compliance. The petitioner contended that the seizure was unjustified, as all other requirements were met, and there was no intention to evade tax. The petitioner also challenged the proposed penalty in the show cause notice. The Standing Counsel argued that the E-way bill was not present during the interception and was only filed later as an afterthought. However, the court noted that the goods were being sold by a registered dealer, and all necessary taxes were paid and documented. The E-way bill was generated promptly after the interception, providing all required details. The court found it perplexing that despite the compliance with tax regulations and the timely submission of the E-way bill, the goods were seized and a penalty was proposed. The court emphasized that until 31st March, 2018, downloading the E-way bill was not mandatory, and the transaction appeared genuine. Therefore, the court set aside the seizure order and show cause notice, ruling in favor of the petitioner. In conclusion, the High Court, comprising Mr. Krishna Murari and Mr. Ashok Kumar, JJ., allowed the writ petition, setting aside the seizure order and show cause notice issued under the UPGST Act, 2017. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering compliance efforts by taxpayers and the timing of regulatory changes in tax laws while assessing penalties and seizures.
|
