2023 (10) TMI 985 - HC - GST

Demand of tax alongwith penalty - part B of the e-way bill accompanying with the goods, was not filled - Arguing the case beyond the pleadings - demand of tax alongwith penalty - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the goods were intercepted during transportation from New Delhi to Telangana at Agra, U.P. and after verification of the documents produced, it was found that part- B of the e- way bill was left blank thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but the petitioner has not submitted any explanation for the same. But on deposit of amount of tax along with penalty, the goods were released on 27.8.2019. The petitioner has not submitted any explanation up to the stage of this Court that under what circumstances, part B of the e-way bill was not filled - petitioner has not assigned any reason, whatsoever, for not complying the provisions under Rule 138. On perusal of the aforesaid judgement of Apex Court in Bachhaj Nahar Vs.Nilima Mandal and another 2008 (9) TMI 967 - SUPREME COURT , it has been held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case without there being any pleading in support of his arguments. No rebuttal / rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the said assertions made in the counter affidavit and on the other hand on 16.10.2023, a statement was made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner did not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit - Once the finding of fact, which has been recorded against the assessee has not been assailed in the present writ petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the case beyond the pleadings. No interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Functionality of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh.
2. Legality of seizure and penalty due to incomplete e-way bill.
3. Petitioner's intention to evade tax.
4. Relevance of previous judgments and circulars cited by the petitioner.
5. Adequacy of pleadings and evidence presented by the petitioner.

Summary:

Functionality of GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh:
The Court entertained the instant Writ Tax due to the non-functionality of the GST Tribunal in Uttar Pradesh, as per the Central Government Gazette notification dated 14.09.2023.

Legality of Seizure and Penalty Due to Incomplete E-way Bill:
The petitioner, a registered company, transported goods from New Delhi to Telangana, which were intercepted in Agra. The goods were seized because part B of the e-way bill was not filled, leading to a proposed tax and penalty. The petitioner argued that the seizure was due to a technical glitch and that there was no intention to evade tax.

Petitioner's Intention to Evade Tax:
The petitioner contended that the authorities did not find any intention to evade tax. However, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide an explanation for the incomplete e-way bill at any stage, including before the Court. The Court emphasized that the petitioner did not challenge the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order.

Relevance of Previous Judgments and Circulars Cited by the Petitioner:
The petitioner relied on previous judgments and a circular dated 14.09.2018, arguing that the authorities should not have initiated proceedings under Section 129 of the Act. The Court, however, found that the facts of the present case were different and that the petitioner did not provide any reason for the incomplete e-way bill.

Adequacy of Pleadings and Evidence Presented by the Petitioner:
The Court highlighted that the petitioner did not specifically challenge the findings of fact in the writ petition and failed to file a rejoinder affidavit to counter the State's assertions. The Court cited several judgments emphasizing the importance of clear pleadings and evidence in legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner cannot argue beyond the pleadings and that no interference was warranted in the impugned order.