9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akdown of the vehicle, no presumption or inference can be drawn against the petitioner as regards its intent to avoid / evade payment of tax. Consequently, the facts of the instant case make it just and proper to impose general penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner by invoking Section 125 of the CGST Act by setting aside the impugned order and notice and by directing the respondents to refund the tax paid by the petitioner by deducting Rs. 25,000/- from the said amount. The impugned Notice and the impugned order are hereby set aside - it is deemed just and proper to invoke Section 125 of CGST Act and impose maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner - petition allowed. - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR For the Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty upon the petitioner under Section 129 of the CGST Act on the ground that at the time of interception on 06.02.2024 at 09.51 a.m., the subject vehicle did not possess a valid e-way bill which had expired on 05.02.2024 itself at 11.59 p.m. 4.1 It is contended that since the non-updation of the e-way bill was not intentional or deliberate on the part of the petitioner, who had no intent to evade / avoid payment of tax nor contravene any of the provisions of the CGST Act, especially when the breakdown of the subject vehicle leading to interception of the new vehicle was not within the control of the petitioner nor was attributable to it and as such, it was a fit case to levy a maximum general penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner by in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of the petitioner to update the e-way bill as also the breakdown was not intentional or attributable to the petitioner nor can any negligence be attributed to the petitioner in this regard. 7. At any rate, the material on record does not disclose that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to either contravene the provisions of the CGST Act or avoid / evade payment of tax and on account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill by the petitioner due to breakdown of the vehicle, no presumption or inference can be drawn against the petitioner as regards its intent to avoid / evade payment of tax. Consequently, the facts of the instant case make it just and proper to impose general penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g detained were, strangely, kept in the house of a relative of Petitioner 2 for 16 days and not at any other designated place for their safe custody. 3. The High Court has, inter alia, found that : ( Satyam Shivam Papers case [Satyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd. v. CST, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 698] , SCC OnLine TS paras 44-46) 44. It was the duty of second respondent to consider the explanation offered by petitioner as to why the goods could not have been delivered during the validity of the e-way bill, and instead he is harping on the fact that the e-way bill is not extended even four (04) hours before the expiry or four (04) hours after the expiry, which is untenable. 45. The second respondent merely states in the counter-affidavit that there is cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the blatant abuse of the power by Petitioner 2 and has deprecated his conduct in the following words : (Satyam Shivam Papers case [ Satyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd. v. CST, 2021 SCC OnLine TS 698] , SCC OnLine TS paras 49-51) 49. We are also unable to understand why the goods were kept for safe keeping at Marredpally, Secunderabad in the house of a relative of the second respondent for (16) days and not in any other place designated for such safe keeping by the State. 50. In our opinion, there has been a blatant abuse of power by the second respondent in collecting from the petitioner tax and penalty both under the CGST and SGST and compelling the petitioner to pay Rs 69,000 by such conduct. 51. We deprecate the conduct of the second resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. As noticed hereinabove, on the facts of this case, it has precisely been found that there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioner to evade tax and rather, the goods in question could not be taken to the destination within time for the reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioner. When the undeniable facts, including the traffic blockage due to agitation, are taken into consideration, the State alone remains responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic. 9. Having said so; having found no question of law being involved; and having found this petition itself being rather misconceived, we are constrained to enhance the amount of costs imposed in this matter by the High Court. 10. The High Court has awarded costs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
