Order Date – 18 July 2023

Parties: Kartar Singh Vs Commissioner, Uttarakhand State GST Commissionerate, Dehradun and others

Facts –

• The Petitioner, Kartar Singh, a transporter, who was transporting goods for one M/s Om International Company, from Ballabhgarh, Punjab to Lakheempur, U.P. The vehicle was intercepted by the Mobile Squad Authority and on inspection it no descripancies were found in the goods and the vehicle. The goods were found as per the sale invoice.
• On 19.01.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner proposing to confiscate the vehicle and imposing fine. A notice was also issued to the owner of the goods, by his letter dated 14.02.2023 admitted that goods were being transported without generating e-way bill, Therefore, on 07.02.2023, by the impugned order fine under Section 130 of the Act equal to the tax payable on the goods in lieu of confiscation was calculated.

Issue –

• Whether the petitioner being a transporter liable to pay penalty if e-way bill is not generated by the owner of the goods?

Order –

• The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that carrying e-way bill by the transporter is a requirement under the Rules, which has the sanction of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is the duty of the owner of the goods alone to generate e-way bill. If e-way bill is not generated by the owner of the goods, who transports such goods, it is the transporter, who has to generate e-way bill. In the instant case, it has not been done.
• Further in order to confiscate a vehicle or to pass an order under Section 130 of the Act, what is to be shown is that there was an “intent to evade payment of tax”. Intention is a mental condition. It is clear from the impugned order that the vehicle was different route, which reveals the modus operandi. The petitioner has not clarified this aspect in his petition. Further, the petitioner did not have the e-way bill.
• When the vehicle was intercepted the petitioner stated that the goods were being transported from Punjab to Uttarakhand. In the petition, at paragraph 5, the petitioner writes that the goods were being transported from Ballabhgarh, Punjab to Lakheempur, U.P. The question is why did the petitioner give wrong statement on 15.01.2023, when he was intercepted.
• These indicate the intention of the petitioner that the goods were being transported in the vehicle, with an intention to evade the tax. Hence the provision of Section 130 of the Act will attract. The Court does not see any reason to make any interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

#Need for GST in India