Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (2) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... saddled with the tax amount of ₹54,00,000/-. The law also provides for imposition of penalty. Ordinarily, it is refrained from interfering, but because there was an E-way bill that was generated and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it is inclined to vary the orders passed by the High Court. The ends of justice would be served if the penalty amount is reduced to 50% of the penalty imposed, i.e., ₹27,00,000/-. Therefore, ₹54,00,000/- being the tax imposed, is upheld and penalty would now be ₹27,00,000/-, totalling to ₹81,00,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant. The said amount, subject to payment(s) already made, shall be deposited with the concerned Authority on or before 29th February, 2024. Upon the same being done, the transportation vehicle as also the consignment shall be released to their rightful owners expeditiously. At the same time, the appellant is cautioned to be vigilant in future. The appeal stands disposed of. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mehul Sharma, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv. Mr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the IGST Act ). 6. The validity of the said E-way bill was till 9th June, 2019. As transportation was not done within the validity period of the E-way bill, finally the consignment was intercepted on 17th June, 2019 and upon inspection, an order of detention was issued by the respondent No. 1, at the time of entering the State of West Bengal, under Section 129(1), CGST Act and Section 129(1), WBGST Act read with Section 20, IGST Act under Form GST MOV-06 No. 703 dated 18th June, 2019. Pursuant thereto, the consignment as well as the vehicle carrying the same were detained by the respondent No. 1. 7. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 issued a notice under Section 129(3), CGST Act and Section 129(3), WBGST Act read with Section 20, IGST Act, being Form GST MOV-07 No. 712 dated 19th June, 2019, asking the appellant to show-cause, within seven days from the date of the receipt of the notice, as to why the proposed tax of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs) and penalty of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs) be not imposed, indicating that failure would lead to initiation of further proceedi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amount through bank guarantee and provisional release of the consignment in terms of Section 129(1)(c), WBGST Act and not to give effect to the demand order dated 27th June, 2019. Further, as an interim measure, it was prayed that the respondents be directed not to give effect and/or further effect to the order dated 27th June, 2019. 9. On 18th September, 2019, the High Court, inter alia, directed that the goods may be released subject to payment of the entire amount of the Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as GST ) of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs) in cash to the Authority, out of which, ₹5,40,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs and forty thousand) had already been paid with the further direction that the appellant shall also pay 50% of the penalty of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs), i.e., ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs) in cash and the remaining 50%, i.e., ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs) by way of bank guarantee which should be valid for a year and be renewed every year till the disposal of the writ petition. Thereafter, the impugned judgment was passed which is under challenge in the present proceeding. SUBMISSION B .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsignment was intercepted in the course of inter-state movement, there was no live/valid E-way bill which exempted payment of the GST and in the absence of the same, imposition of GST and the attendant penalty is justified both, in law as well as on facts. It was submitted that the Authority which has passed the underlying impugned order, exercising the power under the relevant Acts had no option but to pass such an order in view of the admitted factual position and as such, no infirmity or fault can be attributed to the course adopted by the concerned respondents. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court would also consider the facts that in such a matter where the Consignment was to be shifted from Auraiya, State of Uttar Pradesh to Durgapur, State of West Bengal and the validity period of the generated E-way bill was from 30th May, 2019 till 9th June, 2019, i.e., more than ten days whereas, the consignment ultimately crossed the state borders only on 17th June, 2019, i.e., after a delay of over one week from the date of expiry of the E-way bill. The appellant cannot simply plead ignorance of such factum, as it was required to be vigilant of the consignment being tra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontract in West Bengal and no evidence has been placed on record that shows that the consignment was to be sold/used for any other purpose in respect of any other party, this Court is persuaded to interference. 18. The appellant has been saddled with the tax amount of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs). The law also provides for imposition of penalty. Ordinarily, we may have refrained from interfering, but because there was an E-way bill that was generated and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are inclined to vary the orders passed by the High Court. 19. In our opinion, ends of justice would be served if the penalty amount is reduced to 50% of the penalty imposed, i.e., ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs). Therefore, ₹54,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty four lakhs) being the tax imposed, is upheld and penalty would now be ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs), totalling to ₹81,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty one lakhs), which shall be paid by the appellant. The said amount, subject to payment(s) already made, shall be deposited with the concerned Authority on or before 29th February, 2024. Upon the same being done, the transportation vehicle as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates