2023 (12) TMI 234 - HC - GST

Levy of penalty u/s 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - bill of entry mentioned on the e-way bill was erroneous - HELD THAT - Since the present petition has been pending here for over two years, we were inclined to hear the present petition. However, it is pointed out that the notice of the present petition was incorrectly accepted by the counsel and the fact that this petition was filed was not communicated to the concerned department for over two years. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also earnestly contends that the department could not be faulted for not raising this issue at an earlier stage. The present petition cannot be entertained - it is left open for the petitioner to avail its alternative remedies including the remedy of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the imposition of a penalty under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) on the petitioner by the Commissioner, GST Department, for errors in the e-way bill accompanying goods transported in vehicles.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act:
The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed by the Commissioner, arguing that the facts did not warrant such a penalty. It was revealed that while the goods had all relevant documents, the e-way bill had an erroneous bill of entry. The petitioner explained that two bills of entry for similar goods were mistakenly mentioned on the e-way bills for different vehicles, resulting in one consignment having the error. The petitioner emphasized that there was no intention to evade tax, and the error did not lead to any tax evasion or avoidance.

Availability of Alternative Remedies:
The respondents contended that the petitioner could appeal the decision before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Despite the petition being pending for over two years, the court noted that the notice was incorrectly accepted, and the delay in communication to the department was significant. The respondents argued that the department should not be faulted for not raising the issue earlier.

Court's Decision and Observations:
The High Court declined to entertain the petition due to the delay in communication and acceptance of the notice. The petitioner was advised to pursue alternative remedies, including filing an appeal within four weeks before the Appellate Authority. The court clarified that the Appellate Authority would consider the appeal without being influenced by the delay. The petition was disposed of with these observations.