9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1391 - HC - GSTInitiation of proceedings u/s 129 of the CGST / SGST Acts - applicability of provisions of Rule 55 of the CGST Rules - HELD THAT - It is not disputed that the goods were covered by Exts.P4, P5 and P6 delivery notes and Ext.P7 E-Way bill. Though, on the top of Ext.P7 E-Way bill only one delivery note is mentioned, the same is stated to be on account of difficulty in entering the details of 3 delivery notes on one E-Way bill. However, numbers of other two delivery notes are seen included in the column for 'transportation details' in the E-Way bill. That apart, a perusal of Exts.P4, P5, P6 and P7 will indicate that the value of the goods had been correctly mentioned and the entire amount of tax to be paid had also been mentioned. There is no finding in Ext.P17 that would indicate that there is any attempt to evade any tax. It is clear that Rule 55 of the CGST Rules, 2017 applies only to the four circumstances mentioned in Rule 55 (a) to (d) and supply of Acetylene Gas is not covered by Rule 55 (a). Therefore, the goods should have been covered by a tax invoice. The competent among the respondents are directed to consider the case as one covered by the provisions of Section 122 of the CGST /SGST Acts and impose appropriate penalty in terms of the provisions contained in that Section. Any amount recovered from the petitioner on account of ExtP17 order shall either be refunded or shall be adjusted against any future tax liability, by crediting the electronic cash register of the petitioner - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Proceedings initiated under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts against the petitioner. 2. Appeal against the order imposing penalty dismissed by the First Appellate Authority. 3. Petitioner seeking various reliefs through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Dispute regarding the coverage of goods by delivery notes and E-Way bill. 5. Interpretation of Rule 55 of the CGST Rules in relation to the supply of Acetylene Gas. 6. Application of the judgment in W.P (C) No.26645/2021 to the present case. The petitioner, a supplier of industrial gas to Cochin Shipyard, challenged proceedings initiated against them under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Acts, resulting in a penalty of Rs.1,97,023 imposed by an order dated 06-08-2022 (Ext.P17). Despite the goods being covered by 3 delivery notes and an E-Way bill, the penalty was upheld in the appeal (Ext.P19) before the First Appellate Authority. As the Tribunal was not constituted for a second appeal, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including setting aside the orders, refund of the penalty amount, and compensation for the seizure and detention of goods/truck. The E-Way bill mentioned only one delivery note due to technical difficulties, but all three notes were detailed in the transportation section. The value of goods and tax amounts were correctly specified in the documents, with no evidence of tax evasion. The court noted that the petitioner's belief in the applicability of Rule 55 of the CGST Rules to industrial gas supply was incorrect, as Rule 55 applies to specific circumstances not relevant to Acetylene Gas supply, requiring a tax invoice instead. The judgment in W.P (C) No.26645/2021 favored the petitioner on a similar issue, leading to the allowance of the present writ petition based on the same reasoning. Consequently, the proceedings of Ext.P17 and Ext.P19 were quashed. Given the necessity for a tax invoice due to the inapplicability of Rule 55 (a) of the CGST Rules, the competent authority was directed to treat the case under Section 122 of the CGST/SGST Acts and impose a suitable penalty. Any amount collected from the petitioner based on Ext.P17 should be refunded or adjusted against future tax liabilities by crediting the petitioner's electronic cash register. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
