The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner engaged in the business of dealing in TATA Hitachi Construction Machinery. The petitioner prayed for release of the machinery which has been detained while in transit. The excavator was being transported from Silchar to the head office of the petitioner company under properly generated e-way bill dated 14.08.2021 with a validity period up to 16.08.2021. The transport department of State detained the vehicle on the ground that the excavator had no registration in the State which was violative of Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The transport authority released the order of detention on 17.08.2021 upon the petitioner paying fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In the meantime, however, the validity of the e-way bill had expired. The vehicle was intercepted by the GST authorities on the ground that the driver did not have valid e-way bill for the machinery. A fresh e-way bill was also generated on 18.08.2021, however, the authorities refused to accept the same as a valid document. The respondent issued SCN under section 129(3) of the Act. The court observed that the department is not in a position to dispute that the vehicle did arrive at Churaibari check post carrying proper e-way bill. The validity expired on account of unforeseen and unexpected delay in crossing the check post. The fault of the petitioner if at all is rather technical. The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the respondents shall release the transport vehicle and the machinery. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before this Court to the effect that if any tax or penalty liability is crystallized upon final assessment subject to right of appeal and further challenge, the petitioner shall deposit the same with the Government revenue.
The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax.
Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner engaged in the business of dealing in TATA Hitachi Construction Machinery. The petitioner prayed for release of the machinery which has been detained while in transit. The excavator was being transported from Silchar to the head office of the petitioner company under properly generated e-way bill dated 14.08.2021 with a validity period up to 16.08.2021. The transport department of State detained the vehicle on the ground that the excavator had no registration in the State which was violative of Section 192A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The transport authority released the order of detention on 17.08.2021 upon the petitioner paying fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In the meantime, however, the validity of the e-way bill had expired. The vehicle was intercepted by the GST authorities on the ground that the driver did not have valid e-way bill for the machinery. A fresh e-way bill was also generated on 18.08.2021, however, the authorities refused to accept the same as a valid document. The respondent issued SCN under section 129(3) of the Act. The court observed that the department is not in a position to dispute that the vehicle did arrive at Churaibari check post carrying proper e-way bill. The validity expired on account of unforeseen and unexpected delay in crossing the check post. The fault of the petitioner if at all is rather technical. The tax authorities must make a clear distinction between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When the IGST liability has been fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the respondents shall release the transport vehicle and the machinery. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before this Court to the effect that if any tax or penalty liability is crystallized upon final assessment subject to right of appeal and further challenge, the petitioner shall deposit the same with the Government revenue.