2024 (3) TMI 162 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty u/s 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - e-way bill had expired nine hours before the time of interception - slight discrepancy in the weight, that is, the weight of the goods should have been 6,240 kilograms, but it was found to be 5,805 kilograms - HELD THAT - It is noticed that the e-way bill had expired only nine hours before the interception of the goods and the expiry of the e-way bill by itself without an intention to evade tax, as has been held in several judgements of this Court, would not attract imposition of penalty. The authorities below have failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner. Furthermore, it is clear that the goods were traveling from the petitioner/supplier to the purchaser and the total quantity in two e-way bills and two invoices matched, and accordingly, there was no intention to evade tax in any manner whatsoever. The finding of the authorities with regard to intention to evade tax is not supported by the factual matrix of the present case, and accordingly, the impugned orders dated September 15, 2018 and the order dated September 11, 2019 are quashed and set aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 based on the expiry of the e-way bill and a discrepancy in the weight of goods.

Imposition of Penalty based on E-way Bill Expiry:
The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act due to the expiry of the e-way bill nine hours before the interception of goods. The Court noted that the expiry of the e-way bill alone, without any intention to evade tax, does not warrant the imposition of a penalty, as established in previous judgments. The authorities failed to consider the petitioner's explanation and the fact that the goods were being transported from the supplier to the purchaser with matching quantities in the documents.

Discrepancy in Weight of Goods:
Another issue raised was a discrepancy in the weight of the goods, where the actual weight found was 5,805 kilograms instead of the expected 6,240 kilograms. The petitioner explained that the difference was due to delivering a portion of the goods to Shamli before transporting the rest to Muzaffar Nagar for the same purchaser. The Court found that the explanation provided by the petitioner was reasonable and that there was no intention to evade tax.

Judgment Summary:
The Court quashed the orders imposing penalty and the appeal order, directing the respondents to refund the tax and penalty amount within four weeks. It was held that there was no intention to evade tax, as evidenced by the factual details provided by the petitioner. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed.