2024 (2) TMI 659 - HC - GST

Penalty u/s 129(1)(b) of Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up - vehicle was carrying invoice showing that the goods being transported was sindoor , upon detention, it was found that there was no sindoor in the vehicle and there were 21 other items - resumption to evade tax - HELD THAT - In the appeal, certain benefit was granted to the petitioner with regard to sindoor as it was found that though an invoice was present, however, no such sindoor was present in the truck. Accordingly, the penalty for the sindoor was reduced. In relation to other items, there is a clear fact finding by both the authorities that goods were not accompanied by any invoice or e-way bill. Upon a perusal of the order in appeal, it is crystal clear that the petitioner could not justify the reasons for non production of the invoice and the e-way bill. In such cases, a presumption automatically arises that there was an intention to evade tax. This presumption would be rebuttable. However, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned orders - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Application under Article 226 challenging penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and appeal under Section 107(11) of the Act.

Penalty Imposed under Section 129(1)(b):
The petitioner was penalized under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act for discrepancies in transportation of goods. The appeal resulted in partial relief to the petitioner, specifically regarding the item "sindoor" which was not found in the vehicle despite being listed on the invoice.

Factual Matrix and Detention of Vehicle:
The vehicle in question was carrying an invoice indicating the transportation of "sindoor," but Part-B of the e-way bill was left unfilled. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the vehicle contained 21 other items, including various goods like urea water, engine oil, iron hinges, and footwear, among others. None of these additional items had accompanying invoices or e-way bills.

Decision on Appeal and Evidence of Tax Evasion:
While some leniency was shown regarding the absence of "sindoor" as per the invoice, no such concession was made for the other undeclared items lacking proper documentation. Both authorities confirmed the absence of invoices or e-way bills for these items. The court noted that the petitioner failed to provide a valid explanation for the missing documents, leading to a presumption of tax evasion. Despite the rebuttable nature of this presumption, the petitioner failed to present any evidence to counter it, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the impugned orders, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation in the transportation of goods to avoid suspicions of tax evasion. The writ petition challenging the penalties imposed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was ultimately dismissed.