Case Title | Daya Shanker Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner State GST |
Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Sujoy Paul |
Citation | 2022 (8) GSTPanacea 151 HC Madhya Pradesh W.P. No.12324 of 2022 |
Judgement Date | 10-August-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Abhishek Kumar Dhayani |
Council for Respondent | Darshan Soni |
The High Court of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur bench of Justice Justice Sujoy Paul, has held that, the he penalty imposed by the order dated 25/05/2022 with respect to detention of vehicle on expiry of e-way bill is set aside. The amount of penalty already deposited by the petitioner be refunded back to him within 30 days failing which it will carry 6% interest till the time of actual payment.
FACTS OF THE CASE - Imposition of penalty tax
Petitioner is a registered Government contractor and registered dealer. petitioner received a work order from Divisional Project Engineer of Public Works Department (PIU), Dindori for construction of additional laboratory and class room at Chandravijay College, Dindori. The petitioner received quotation from Mittal Steels for supply of TMT bars. In turn, petitioner placed order to Mittal Steels, Raipur for supply of TMT bars. Mittal Steels in furtherance of petitioner’s order/demand raised commercial invoice charging IGST @ 18% i.e. Rs. 3,41,011.37/-. Mittal Steels being supplier of goods in compliance of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services act generated an E-Way Bill for movement of goods from Raipur to Dindori on 17.05.2022 on 06:08 PM.
Said vehicle reached Dindori on 19.5.2022 between 10.30 to 10.45 pm well within the time mentioned in the E-Way Bill. After reaching the destination, i.e. Dindori, the truck driver called the petitioner and informed that the truck has reached the destination. The petitioner told the truck driver to take the vehicle to Weigh Bridge. While the vehicle was moving towards Weigh Bridge, the Assistant Commissioner at 4.35 AM on 20.5.2022 stopped the vehicle and demanded the relevant documents. The truck driver produced all the relevant documents necessary for the purpose of transportation. The Assistant Commissioner was satisfied by all the documents produced by truck driver except the Eway Bill. The Assistant Commissioner opined that E-way Bill got expired on 19.5.2022 at 12:00 AM. The repeated requests of truck driver and transporter to Assistant Commissioner that the goods reached Dindori before 12:00 AM and unintentional delay occurred thereafter went in vain. The vehicle was detained in the custody of the City Police Station, Dindori. The Commissioner imposed the penalty amount of Rs.6,82,030.00.
The petitioner urged that proceedings initiated under Section 29 of the GST Act were not justifiable. The respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice, which is part of statutory requirement of Section 126 of the said Act which clearly provides that no penalty should be imposed for ‘minor breaches’ or procedural requirements or omission etc. The petitioner was not found guilty of any fraudulent intent or gross negligence. Thus, imposition of penalty to the tune of Rs.6,82,030.00 was totally disproportionate and unwarranted.The respondents have failed to see that there was no revenue loss. The intention of introducing E-Way Bill mechanism was to keep a check on the movement of goods without tax invoice or and to regulate tax evasion but penalty notice issued for expiry of E-Way Bill was unjustifiable and runs contrary to the scheme and object of said mechanism. In support of his contention Shri Dhyani placed reliance on a judgment of various cases which had dealt with the similar facts. One of those was the case of ) Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner, ST & others (W.P.No.9688 of 2020) where the decision was that ‘merely because the E-way Bill has expired is also nowhere explained in the counter-affidavit. In our considered opinion, there was no material before the 2nd respondent to come to the conclusion that there was evasion of tax by the petitioner merely on account of lapsing of time mentioned in the E-way Bill because even the 2nd respondent does not say that there was any evidence of attempt to sell the goods to somebody else on 6.1.2020. On account of non-extension of the validity of the E-way Bill by petitioner or the auto trolly driver, no presumption can be draw that there was an intention to evade tax.” The writ petition was allowed by the High Court and action of levying of tax and penalty was set aside. The respondents were directed to refund the said amount with interest.
Shri Darshan Soni, learned counsel for the Department/respondents supported the impugned notice/order. On a specific query from the Bench, Shri Soni, categorically admitted that singular flaw/deficiency found in the documents provided by the truck driver was that E-way Bill stood expired on 19/05/2022 and vehicle was intercepted almost 4-5 hours thereafter at 4.35 A.M. on 20/05/2022. No other discrepancy/deficiency was found in the documents produced by the truck driver. Shri Darshan Soni, learned counsel for the respondents urged that the action taken by the Department is in consonance with the enabling provisions and no fault can be found in the impugned notice/order. Learned counsel for the parties further apprised the Court that the Statutory Appellate Forum under the GST Act has not been constituted till date. Thus, the only remedy at present available to the petitioner is the remedy before this Court.
COURT HELD - Imposition of penalty tax
The Court held that the, the We find substantial force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that present case has similarity with that of the above cases decided. The respondents could not establish that there exist any element of evasion of tax, fraudulent intent or negligence on the part of the petitioner. In this backdrop, the impugned notice/order could not have been passed.
The principles of natural justice were statutorily recognized and ingrained in Section 126(1)(3) of the Act. The Law Makers have taken care of doctrine of proportionality while bringing sub-section (1) of Section 126 in the Statute Book. The punishment should be commensurate to the breach is the legislative mandate as per subsection (1) of Section 126. In the instant case, the delay of almost 4:30 hours before which E-way Bill stood expired appears to be bonafide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of petitioner, the impugned notice/order could not have been passed. Resultantly, the penalty imposed by the order dated is set aside. The amount of penalty already deposited by the petitioner be refunded back to him within 30 days failing which it will carry 6% interest till the time of actual payment. The impugned notice/order could not have been passed. The writ petition is allowed.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT - Imposition of penalty tax
By noticing the above order we analyse that t there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioner to evade tax and we cannot conclude that there was evasion of tax by the petitioner merely on account of lapsing of time mentioned in the E-way Bill. We can say that imposition of penalty tax and penalty for clerical error is bad in law.
Download PDF:
DayaShankerSingh
For Visit Reference: