9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 912 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty under Clause A of Sub Section 1 of 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - seeking release of detained goods - alleged discrepancy in the E-way bill generated by the petitioner for movement of its excavator from project site in Kerala to its branch office in Dhamra Port, Doshinga Village, Dist Bhadrak, Odisha - HELD THAT - Prima facie, it appears invocation under Section 129(3) of the Act for imposing penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act appears to be misplaced as there is no supply either within the meaning of Section 7 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or within the meaning of provisions of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. Ultimately, the purpose of E-way bill is to ensure that there is no leakage of revenue when the goods are on the move. Prima facie it appears that there is no supply for attracting of levy either under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act 2017. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the credit of the respondents and furnish a bond for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the respondents. On such compliance being observed by the petitioner, the respondents shall release the excavator which was seized on 24.09.2022 together with the lorry on which the excavator was being transported - Once the petitioner complies with the requirements of this order, the respondents shall release the excavator and the lorry forthwith in which the excavator has been transported. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to impugned notice under Section 129(3) of CGST Act, discrepancy in E-way bill, imposition of penalty under Clause A of Sub Section 1 of 129 of CGST Act, invocation of penalty, alternative remedy of writ petition, premature filing of writ petition. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an impugned notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, calling for a show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed under Clause A of Sub Section 1 of 129 of the Act. The petitioner's excavator was seized while in transit due to an alleged discrepancy in the E-way bill generated for its movement from Kerala to Odisha for a new contract. The petitioner contended that there was no supply under the CGST Act or IGST Act, and any penalty for E-way bill mistakes should be limited to Rs. 1000 based on circulars from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Reference was made to relevant circulars and legal precedents, including a decision of the Kerala High Court and other cases from the same court. The respondents argued that the petitioner acquiesced to the notice under Section 129(3) and had an alternative remedy instead of rushing to court prematurely. The court considered both parties' arguments and found that the invocation of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) seemed misplaced as there was no supply as defined in the Acts. The court emphasized that the purpose of E-way bills is to prevent revenue leakage during goods transportation. While directing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings, the court noted that detention of the excavator needed for the Odisha project might not be necessary if the petitioner agreed to provide adequate security for the proposed penalty. As a resolution, the court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondents and furnish a bond for the remaining amount. Upon compliance, the respondents were ordered to release the seized excavator and lorry. This payment was without prejudice to the petitioner's rights in the ongoing proceedings. The writ petition was allowed with these directions, and upon compliance, the excavator and lorry were to be released immediately. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.
|
