9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity under WBGST Act, 2017 confirming the order of the Adjudicating Authority imposing penalty for transporting goods after the expiry of the e-way bill. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner is a registered company, duly constituted under Section 2 (20) of the Companies Act, 2013, with its registered office at 24C, Rabindra Sarani, 3rd Floor, Kolkata 700073. The Petitioner holds valid registrations under the Central Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'CGST') Act, 2017, the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'WBGST') Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (hereinafter referred to as 'IGST') Act, 2017, under GST registration number 19AABCE9576H1Z5. 3. The Petitioner is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods with an expired E-way bill. The Petitioner's office had a half-day on July 1, 2023 and was closed on July 2, 2023 i.e., on Sunday, resulting in the expiry of the E-way bill going unnoticed. However, during transit on July 2, 2023, the Respondent No. 1 intercepted the vehicle near Basantpur, National Highway, and initiated physical verification. Following this, Respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-07 on July 5, 2023, proposing a penalty of Rs. 1,98,316/- each under CGST and WBGST, citing violation of Section 68 of the said Act due to transportation on an expired E-way bill. 6. Upon notification, the Petitioner sought release of the detained goods by providing a bank guarantee and bond on July 7, 2023. However, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay bill system is to document goods movement and prevent clandestine transactions, which was fulfilled in this case, as the E-way bill was generated and validated prior to the journey. Therefore, the detention and penalty imposition were unduly harsh and unwarranted. 10. The petitioner avers that the transaction was recorded in its books, reported in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, and the petitioner's customer availed input tax credit in GSTR-3B based on the corresponding transaction in GSTR-2A, negating any chance of tax evasion. The petitioner further submits that the Respondents acted without jurisdiction by imposing penalties based solely on procedural lapses. It contends that such action was arbitrary and in excess of the statutory mandate. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent authority submits that the petitioner's appeal is irrelevant, especially as the vehicle was intercepted nearly 15 hours after the E-waybill expired. Excusing this negligence by the petitioner could set an undesirable precedent owing to which the respondent saw no grounds to interfere with the Adjudicating Officer's order. 13. Upon a thorough examination of the documents presented to the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court opines that while procedural compliance under the GST framework is crucial, penalties imposed purely for procedural lapses without evidence of tax evasion or malicious intent may not serve the legislative intent. Given the absence of any attempt to divert the goods or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
