9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 648 - HC - GSTDetention of goods alongwith conveyance - Conclusion of proceedings on paying of tax u/s 129(5) - Part-B of the E-Way bill was not entered as contemplated under provisions of Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - intent to evade tax, present or not - HELD THAT - The counsel for the petitioner is wrong in contending that since there was no intend to evade tax the impugned orders passed under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 cannot be sustained. For the purpose of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 there is no requirement that there should be intention to evade tax. The authorities are not required to establish intention to evade payment of tax. Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 has been enacted to check evasion of tax. If the goods are intercepted during transit and the documents accompanying the goods are not in compliance with the provisions of the Act, authorities are within their power to detain the goods and demand payment of tax and 100% penalty under the provisions. Moreover, the petitioner does not deny that payment under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 has been made. Keeping in view the bare provision of Section 129 (5) all proceedings in respect to the notice are deemed to have been concluded - there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Proper Officer and Appellate Authority regarding detention of goods in transit and imposition of tax and penalty under CGST/SGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in pharmaceutical manufacturing, challenged the orders passed by the Proper Officer-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer and the Appellate Authority regarding the detention of goods in transit. The goods were apprehended while in transit in a vehicle, and discrepancies were found in the E-way bills and accompanying documents. The Proper Officer detained the conveyance under Section 129(1) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, and imposed tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 43,85,068. The petitioner challenged these actions, claiming no intention to evade tax but disputing the quantum of tax and penalty imposed. The Appellate Authority affirmed the Proper Officer's decision, leading the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The petitioner acknowledged the violation of Section 68 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 but disputed the quantum of tax and penalty, arguing against the imposition of penalty due to the absence of intent to evade tax. The respondents contended that the petitioner's actions fell within the scope of Section 129 of the Act, as the E-way bill was not in compliance with the law. The court analyzed Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, which allows for the detention and seizure of goods in transit for contravention of the Act's provisions, without requiring proof of intent to evade tax. The authorities have the power to detain goods and demand payment of tax and penalty in such cases. The petitioner had made the payment under Section 129(3) of the Act, indicating compliance with the statutory requirements. The court concluded that under Section 129(5) of the Act, once the payment is made, all proceedings related to the notice are deemed concluded. Therefore, there was no justification to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding it devoid of merit based on the legal provisions and actions taken by the authorities.
|
