9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 452 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods - levy of penalty - expiry of time mentioned in E-way bill - Existence of mens rea or not - HELD THAT - In the case in hand, the goods were detained and the order dated 17.08.2021 was passed on the ground that E-way bill had expired. It is not the case of the revenue that before passing of the seizure order, an amended E-way bill was not produced. It is also not the case of the revenue that any finding of mens rea with regard to intention to evade payment of tax, was recorded as even the revenue authority before this Court fails to show the same. This Court in the case of Shyam Sel 2023 (10) TMI 218 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held ' Once the dealer has intimated the attending and mediating circumstances under which e-way bill of the purchasing dealer was cancelled, it was a minor breach. The authority could have initiated proceedings under section 122 of the CGST Act instead of proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act.' Thus, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed - petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order seizing goods and levying penalty based on expired E-way bill. 2. Allegation of no intention to evade tax and production of amended E-way bill. 3. Interpretation of provisions under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. 4. Comparison of intent to evade tax under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order seizing goods and imposing a penalty due to an expired E-way bill. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing and supplying LD Polythene products, dispatched goods to a recipient but faced detention as the E-way bill's time had lapsed. The petitioner explained that the delay was due to the truck driver diverting to his native place without informing the parties. Despite producing an amended E-way bill promptly, the goods were seized, leading to the appeal and subsequent writ petition. 2. The petitioner asserted that there was no discrepancy in the goods' quantity, and an amended E-way bill was presented before the seizure order. Emphasizing the absence of any intention to evade tax, the petitioner contended that the seizure was unwarranted. Citing a previous judgment involving Shyam Sel and Power Ltd., the petitioner argued for the order's annulment based on procedural irregularities and lack of tax evasion motive. 3. The court analyzed the provisions of sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act in light of the case. Referring to the judgment in Shyam Sel's case, the court highlighted the necessity of establishing intent to evade tax for invoking these sections. It was noted that the authorities failed to demonstrate any mens rea regarding tax evasion in the present matter. The court stressed the importance of considering intent before initiating proceedings under sections 129 and 130. 4. Drawing a comparison between sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act, the court underscored the requirement of proving intent to evade tax for both sections. Quoting the judgment's excerpts, the court elucidated that intent to evade tax is a fundamental prerequisite for actions under these provisions. Additionally, a recent Division Bench decision was referenced to emphasize the consequences of penalties imposed without substantiated evidence of tax evasion. Ultimately, the court quashed the impugned order, citing the lack of intent to evade tax and procedural missteps. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of establishing intent to evade tax before seizing goods and imposing penalties under the CGST Act. The court's decision to quash the order was based on the absence of evidence supporting tax evasion motives and procedural lapses in the case.
|
