9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellant. However, the conduct of the appellant in not extending the e-way bill for four days after its expiry cannot be absolutely condoned. A transporter/owner of the goods is bound to carry certain documents as mentioned in the Act which are to accompany the goods. In the instant case, prior to the movement of the goods e-way bill was generated in which the tax invoice number was duly incorporated proof of payment of tax has also been established and e-way bill was valid till 05.09.2022 and mistake committed by the appellant is not extending the e-way bill after the expiry despite such liberty being granted under the Rules. The appellate authority in fact has accepted the contention of the appellant that the penalty amount has been computed on a higher value than the invoice value without proper evidence and reason. Cnsidering the totality of the circumstances and the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court is inclined to grant some indulgence to the appellant but will not completely exonerate the appellant - Considering the peculiarity of the facts, the appellant is liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- - appeal allowed in part. - THE HON BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion is required to be done in accordance with Section 68(3) of the WBGST Act read with CGST Act, 2017 or under Section 20 of IGST Act for the reasons that the e-way bill expired for more than four days. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order of detention under Section 129(1) on the ground that the e-way expired for more than four days. A showcause notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the Act proposing to levy of 200% penalty on the grounds that the e-way had expired for more than four days and the vehicle was moving with the loaded consignment without an e-way bill. 6. The appellant submitted their reply on 13.09.2022 stating that the material loaded in the vehicle belongs to them and though the loading was done on 02.09.2022, the journey was started by the driver on 03.09.2022; before entering the state of West Bengal the vehicle passed through Paza toll plaza on 05.09.2022 at 7:35 AM and then passed through Kokpora toll plaza on 05.09.2022 at 11:21 AM and later passed through Balibhasa toll plaza at 1:48 PM. After passing through Balibhasa toll, the vehicle suffered a breakdown and it was repaired and it started its journey again and reached Debra toll plaza on 07.09.2022 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was generated on 02.09.2022 has been recorded in the tax invoice. It is seen that the penalty was calculated at 200% on the assessable value of Rs. 13,96,710/- though the value mentioned in the invoice by the vendor is Rs. 8,75,715/-. It appears that the appellant did not have any opportunity to put forth his objection with regard to the enhanced assessable value as made by the adjudicating authority. 10. The question which falls for consideration in this case is whether penalty in terms of Section 129 of the Act could be imposed without considering as to whether there was an intention to evade the payment of taxes. This contention was raised by the appellant before the appellate authority and several decisions in support of their contention were relied on for the proposition that mens rea is essential for imposition of penalty. The appellate authority has noted the submissions made by the appellant, however rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant could not produce any documentary evidence to justify that efforts were taken by them to extend the validity of e-way bill. 11. The learned Government Counsel would strenuously contend that the provisions should not be rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt for engaging services of a crane, the appellant did not produce any other document. However, there was nothing on record to show that there was intention on the part of the appellant to evade the payment of tax. 16. In the preceding paragraphs, we have referred to the inspection report which does not contend any other allegations except that there was no valid e-way bill when the vehicle was intercepted. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Satyam Shivam Papers Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others noticed the facts of the said case and held that it has precisely been found that there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioners to evade payment of tax and rather the goods could not be taken to the destination within the time for reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioners. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the state would submit that the facts in the case of Satyam Shivam Papers Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax and Others was entirely different and it was a hard case of facts where the Hon ble Supreme Court had granted relief and the said decision cannot be applied to the present case considering the factual positio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere any person transports any goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyances used as a means of transportation for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and conveyances shall be liable to detention or seizure, the goods shall be released on payment of penalty equal to 50% of the value of the goods or 200% of the tax payable on such goods whichever is higher as per clause (b) of Section 129. Thus, in terms of the statute the percentage of penalty has been fixed giving no room for any discretion to be exercised by the concerned authority. However, when the correctness of the order passed by the adjudicating authority/appellate authority is tested before a court of law, the court is entitled to consider the entire factual circumstances and to decide as to whether the aggrieved person was fairly dealt with by the authorities and whether they had adequate opportunity to put forth their submissions and whether the authorities has taken note of the submissions and given reasons in support of its conclusions while imposing the penalty. 22. In the instant case w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
