The Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while imposing the penalty for an amount equivalent to tax, it is applicable when the tax is sought to be evaded. Court aside the order of penalty and direct the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as penalty for the breach which is covered under Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –Penalty-- The petitioner challenged the detention Order dated 27.05.2020, vide which a liability has been determined. Since the petitioner could not produce the valid e-way bill, an aggregate penalty of Rs. 3,56,990/-, equivalent to the tax payable, was imposed. The petitioner submitted that for two vehicles used consecutively, the valid e-way bills were generated, but due to sudden lock down the consignment could not be brought within the time. The omission is attributable on their part for not generating the e-way bill despite their diligent efforts to generate a new e-way bill against the vehicle which was carrying the consignment. If the allegations are wholly accepted, that breach will be covered by Section 122(xiv) of the Act. There is no fraudulent intention or malafide act. It was a lapse under very abnormal circumstances of lockdown and that aspect of the matter has not been considered at all. The court observed that the breach definitely falls within the ambit of Section 122(xiv) of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order of penalty and directed the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as penalty for the breach which is covered under Section 122(xiv) of the Act within a period of one month.