2022 (7) TMI 564 - HC - GST

Detention of vehicle - Levy of tax with interest and penalty - mismatch between the registration number of the vehicle and the vehicle number mentioned in the e-way bill - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of M/S. SAME DEUTZFAHR INDIA P LTD VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA 2020 (9) TMI 1057 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT where it was held that Once it is clear that petitioner has additional place of business in the State of Telangana in Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and the goods were being transported to that address from its Corporate office at Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State, it cannot be said that the petitioner was indulging in any illegal activity when the tax invoice shows that the supplier is the petitioner s Corporate office in Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State and that it was shipped to its Depot in Bongulur village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. Matter is remanded back to the file of respondent No.1, who shall hear both sides including the petitioner and thereafter, pass fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the decision rendered by this Court in SAME DEUTZFHR INDIA P. LTD. V. STATE OF TELANGANA - Since the petitioner is before this Court, let it appear before respondent No.1 on 25.07.2022 at 10.30 a.m., whereafter, respondent No.1 shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing appeal on vehicle number mismatch in e-way bill; Interpretation of Circular on minor mistakes in e-way bill; Jurisdiction of Tribunal under Central GST Act; Applicability of GST on stock transfer.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dismissing their appeal regarding a vehicle carrying pharma drugs intercepted due to a mismatch between the e-way bill and the actual vehicle number. The Proper Officer levied tax and penalty, upheld by respondent No.1 citing gross mismatch not covered by Circular on minor mistakes in e-way bills. The petitioner argued the absence of a Tribunal under Central GST Act compelled them to file a writ petition. The Court emphasized the significance of accurate e-way bill details to prevent tax evasion, dismissing the appeal due to lack of convincing explanation from the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that GST should not apply to stock transfers, citing a previous judgment. Referring to the judgment, the Court highlighted the importance of verifying business locations to avoid unnecessary tax and penalty collection. The Court found the petitioner's actions lawful in transferring goods between their offices, emphasizing the absence of a sale transaction. Consequently, the Court directed the refund of tax and penalty collected from the petitioner.

Considering the precedent set by a previous case, the Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to respondent No.1 for reconsideration. The Court instructed respondent No.1 to review the case in light of the previous judgment and make a fresh decision accordingly. The petitioner was directed to appear before respondent No.1 for further proceedings in compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition without imposing any costs, closing any related pending petitions. The detailed analysis covered issues related to the vehicle number mismatch in the e-way bill, the interpretation of the Circular on e-way bill mistakes, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the Central GST Act, and the applicability of GST on stock transfers. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate documentation to prevent tax evasion and highlighted the lawful nature of stock transfers without a sale transaction.