GST
TRT-2025-
Allahabad High Court
Date:-25-12-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 25 January 2024
Parties: M/s Falguni Steels Vs State of U.P. and Others
Facts –
- The Petitioner, M/s Falguni Steels, obtained the service of a private road carrier for the transportation of its goods on February 20, 2019. However they failed to generate by the time of the onset of the transportation of the Good due to technical glitches in the e-Way Bill portal.
- They presented e-Way Bills generated on February 20, 2019 and February 21, 2019 before the Respondent No. 2 at the time of the interception of the goods and before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice as well as passing of the order. However, the said e-way Bills were not taken into consideration by the Respondent No. 2.
Issue –
- Whether the imposition of Tax and Penalty is proper for failure to generate e-Way bills on time?
Order –
- The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that although the petitioner failed to generate the e-Way Bill on time, the Tax Invoices issued contained all the relevant details including the detail of the vehicle transporting the goods. Morever, the CGST and the SGST were already charged by SAIL. Therefore, no intention to evade tax is evident in this case.
- Furthermore, the tax invoices contained the details of the vehicle that was transporting the goods. It is further to be noted that one e-Way Bill was generated before the detention and one subsequent to the detention, but before passing of the order under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017. Under these circumstances, there does not appear to be any intention to evade the tax.
- Once both the e-Way Bills were presented before passing of the penalty order, and all the documents including the tax invoices, were found to be in order, the Respondent No. 2 had no sound rationale to pass the impugned order dated February 20, 2019.
- The impugned orders in the instant case are a result of the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 3 exceeding their jurisdiction and not proceeded in accordance with the essential requirement of the law where it was meant to adminiter. Therefore, a writ of certiorari is warranted in the instant case.
- The Court directed the Respondent No. 2 to refund the amount of tax and penalty deposited by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from date. The Petition is allowed.
Download Case Law
