2024 (4) TMI 361 - HC - GST

Generation of Duplicate / multiple E-way Bills - Delay in filing of Appeal before the Appellate Authority - Petition to quash the order reducing the interest and rectification order - limitation period - intimation of discrepancies in the return after scrutiny - multiple E-way bills for the same invoice number and date, same invoice value and the same consignee - HELD THAT -In the instant case, the person in charge of generating E-way bills is new to handling the generation of E-way bills. The said person generated two E-way bills for the same invoice applicable to the same consignee with GSTIN number. In fact, even though duplicate E-way bills were generated, only one consignment was sent to the consignee with one E-way bill. The total number of E-way bills mentioned by the respondent was 12. This means there are 6 original E-way bills and 6 E-way bills issued for the same invoice. Admittedly, only 6 consignments with 6 E-way bills were sent and invoices were sent to the consignee and the GST collected under the said invoices was paid to the department and mentioned in the returns filed by the petitioner during the period. By inadvertence, the person who handled the generation of E-way bills generated 2 EWB for each invoice, which is only a technical mistake in the portal at the relevant time. The petitioner has not preferred the appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent dated 09.06.2023 and the limitation period for filing the same is 3 months plus 1 month which expired in October 2023. Hence, there is a delay of more than 4 months to prefer the appeal before the respondent. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner shall be directed to pay 15% of the disputed tax on or before 25.03.2024 and on payment of the same, the petitioner may prefer the appeal before the respondent / The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Chennai, within a period of two weeks thereof and it is made clear that the Appellate Authority shall not insist on the limitation period and is directed to entertain the appeal if it is filed by the petitioner within the period of two weeks and the same is in order. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above observation and direction.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the validity of the order issued by the respondent reducing the interest portion alone of the petitioner, discrepancies in the generation of E-way bills during the period 2018-19, and the delay in filing an appeal challenging the order passed by the respondent.

Validity of Order:
The petitioner, an assessee under GST law, challenged the respondent's order reducing the interest portion alone. The respondent demanded tax, penalty, and interest for discrepancies in E-way bills generated during 2018-19. The petitioner argued that the interest was calculated incorrectly, leading to the rectification order reducing the interest amount. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the proceedings due to financial constraints and the termination of their Accountant in 2021.

Discrepancies in E-way Bills:
The respondent alleged that the petitioner's employee generated duplicate E-way bills for the same invoice, resulting in discrepancies. However, the petitioner contended that only one consignment was sent for each invoice, and the GST collected was duly paid to the department. The petitioner attributed the error to technical challenges in the portal and the inexperience of the employee handling E-way bill generation.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The Additional Government Pleader argued that there was a significant delay in filing an appeal against the respondent's order, exceeding the prescribed limitation period. The Court noted the delay and directed the petitioner to pay 15% of the disputed tax before a specified date to enable them to file an appeal within two weeks. The Court instructed the Appellate Authority to accept the appeal without insisting on the limitation period if filed within the stipulated timeframe.

Conclusion:
The Court directed the petitioner to pay a percentage of the disputed tax by a specified date and allowed them to file an appeal within two weeks, despite the delay. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority should entertain the appeal if filed within the prescribed timeframe. The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were awarded.