transportation in e-way bill
Case Title | Shanu Events vs State of U.P and Others. |
Court | Allahabad High Court |
Honorable Judges | Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh |
Citation | 2022 (8) GSTPanacea 177 HC Allahabad WTA No. 258 /2022 |
Judgement Date | 05-August-2022 |
Council for Petitioner | Tanmay Sadh Aishwarya Pratap Singh |
Council for Respondent | C.S.C. Neeraj Kumar Singh |
The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has held that there appears no doubt to the genuineness of the explanation furnished by the assessee that the mistake was inadvertent. Clearly, the mistake was bonafide as sometime occurs.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the appellate authority dated 5.3.2021 in appeal no. 05/2021 for A.Y. 2020-21 (U.P.) arising from proceeding under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
By that order, the first appeal authority has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order dated 28.12.2020 imposing tax Rs. 2,16,000/- and equal amount of penalty, totalling Rs. 4,32,000/- on the petitioner.
The petitioner is an event management firm having its head office at Katni, Madhya Pradesh. For that purpose, it was transporting LED panels on truck bearing registration no. HR 55-V-5014. While in transit through State of U.P., the vehicle was stopped for inspection. It was found accompanying with the e-way bill disclosing transportation of LED panels from the petitioner’s place of business at Katni to the petitioner’s other place of business at Haridwar, Uttarakhand.
Perusal of the e-way bill reveals, the petitioner made an inadvertent error in applying for the e-way bill. After mentioning the place of shipment to “Kumbh Mela, Haridwar, Uttarakhand”, the words “Madhya Pradesh – 483501” were filled up. The address having been thus wrongly filled up and the pin code having been filled up of Katni, Madhya Pradesh, the software was forced to commit an error by filling up the destination of transportation to 100 kms thought it should have auto-generated that field, at about 1000 kms.
Prompted by that, the software then generated the validity period of the e-way bill to one day. It thus expired on 24.12.2020. Occasioned solely by that occurrence, goods were seized, tax and penalty demanded.
transportation in e-way bill
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that there appears no doubt to the genuineness of the explanation furnished by the assessee that the mistake was inadvertent. Once the assessee had disclosed the place of shipment at Haridwar, Uttarkhand, there survived no occasion to fill up the place of destination at Madhya Pradesh with the pin code of the petitioner’s office at Katni, Madhya Pradesh. Clearly, the mistake was bonafide as sometime occurs.
The order dated 28.12.2020 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act and the appeal order dated 5.3.2021 found to be perverse and are set aside
The amount of security and penalty that may have been deposited by the petitioner-assesses, may be returned to it, in accordance with law
transportation in e-way bill
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
In absence of any allegation or material found of ill-intent on part of the assessee to transport the goods for the purposes of sale, the imposition of tax and demand of penalty is wholly unfounded. The goods are old. The breach was technical and not real
Download Pdf :
For Reference Visit :