GST - New Delhi High Court: Petitioner is granted another chance to establish, as to why the subject goods did not reach their designated designation before the expiry of e-way bill - No penalty can be levied for e-way bill expiry without giving opportunity of being heard - Writ petition disposed of [Attached order dated 23 August 2022]

Your free trial / membership plan is expired.
Kindly subscribe to get complete access to indirect tax updates and issue wise cases
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates and download copy of case laws/ notification/ circular etc.
Be a part of our WhatsApp group and read real time indirect tax updates
Access to ready case laws of General Issues and Industry Wide Issues under GST
Access to relevant provisions of law / circular in respect to the issues, along with trail of their amendments
Write your GST query to us for evaluation
Subscription Charges:*
Indirect tax updates -
6 months @299 / 1 Year @499 only
Indirect tax updates + Issue wise cases -
6 months @1199 / 1 Year @1999 only
*Plus applicable GST
Admin
10-Sep-2022 04:25:13
Order Date: 23 August 2022
Facts-
- The Petitioner, Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar transported goods from Guwahati to Delhi. The e-way bill was prepared for those goods which was valid till September 28, 2020. The goods reached its destination on September 29, 2020, by which time the e-way bill expired.
- Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated September 30, 2020 was issued by the assessing authority to the Petitioner under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act 2017 the reason given, “goods not covered by valid documents”. The Petitioner paid the amount demanded towards tax and penalty, as he was keen that the goods reached the designated destination at the earliest and did not avail of the opportunity of being heard.
- Subsequently, the Respondent passed an Order dated December 31, 2021 and imposed tax along with the penalty equal to 100% of tax payable.
- Being aggrieved by the Impugned order the Petitioner filed the writ petition.
Issue-
- Whether the Petitioner is liable to pay tax along with the penalty equal to 100% of tax?
Order-
- The Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that it is not in dispute that tax stands paid, and that the impugned demand has been raised, only for the reason that at the time of interception, the e-way bill was not valid. This is not a case where the Petitioner intended to evade tax. However, the impugned demand seeks not only the payment of tax but also a penalty.
- The Court further, observed that the Petitioner paid the amount demanded towards tax and penalty, as he was keen that the goods reached the designated destination at the earliest but the Petitioner did not avail of the opportunity to demonstrate, that the goods could not reach their destination before the expiry of the validity period of the e-way bill.
- Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the assessing authority, to take a fresh decision in the matter, after giving the Petitioner due opportunity to produce relevant material or evidence to establish its case, that the delay in transporting the goods to their destination was on account of genuine reasons. Further, stated that while carrying out this exercise, the concerned officer to bear in mind, the provisions of Section 126 of the CGST Act which inter alia adverts to omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable.
- The writ petition is disposed of.
Related Post
Post Category
Your free trial/ membership plan has expired. Kindly subscribe to get complete access of tax news updates.
Why subscribe to us ?
Get complete access to news updates
Access to the Order Copy of the case law/ Notification/ Circular etc
Be a part of our Whatsapp group and read real time tax updates
Access to ready case laws/ circulars on general and industry-wide issues under GST
Submit your GST issues to us for evaluation