Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 44 - HC - GSTIssues: 1. Quashing of show cause notice and assessment order. 2. Validity of e-way bill and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act. 3. Intent to evade tax and imposition of penalty. 4. Refund of penalty paid by the petitioner. Issue 1: Quashing of show cause notice and assessment order: The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned show cause notice and assessment order dated 06.02.2024 and 16.02.2024, respectively. The petitioner's vehicle faced a breakdown during transit, leading to the shifting of goods to another vehicle, causing a delay in reaching the destination. The petitioner argued that the failure to update the e-way bill with the new vehicle number was unintentional and beyond its control, justifying the quashing of the notice and order. Issue 2: Validity of e-way bill and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act: The petitioner's vehicle possessed a valid e-way bill, but due to the breakdown, the goods were transferred to another vehicle, resulting in a delay in reaching the destination. The petitioner contended that the failure to update the e-way bill was due to genuine reasons and not intentional. The court observed that there was no evidence of intent to evade tax, and the circumstances warranted the imposition of a general penalty of Rs. 25,000 under Section 125 of the CGST Act. Issue 3: Intent to evade tax and imposition of penalty: The court found that the petitioner's actions were not deliberate or indicative of tax evasion. The breakdown of the vehicle and subsequent delay in reaching the destination were beyond the petitioner's control. The court emphasized that no presumption of tax evasion could be drawn from the non-extension of the e-way bill due to unforeseen circumstances. The judgment cited the case of Assistant Commissioner vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. to support the petitioner's argument. Issue 4: Refund of penalty paid by the petitioner: The petitioner had already paid the penalty demanded by the respondents. The court directed the refund of any amount paid in excess of Rs. 25,000 within a month from the date of the order. The court invoked Section 125 of the CGST Act to impose the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case and the lack of intent to evade tax. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, set aside the show cause notice and assessment order, imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner, and directed the refund of any excess penalty paid. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering genuine reasons and circumstances in tax-related matters and refraining from drawing unwarranted inferences of tax evasion.
|