A mere omission to mention the address of delivery where the same is different from the place of supply in the e-Way Bill, cannot be a ground for the respondent to presume that there is an intention to violate the law or to evade tax.
It is important to note that interpretation of taxing statutes should be done in a way to facilitate business and inter-State trading, and not in a perverse manner which would result in impediment of the same by harassing business persons.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit – The petitioner challenged the detention order and submitted that the driver of the vehicle produced all documents such as Tax Invoice and e-Way Bill but the vehicle was detained on the ground wrong destination is noticed. The petitioner got released his vehicle by depositing total tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 4,30,778/- under protest. The petitioner submitted that there was no intention or attempt on his part to evade tax, and to save unnecessary transport charges and also time, it had asked the driver of the vehicle to deliver goods directly to the petitioner’s customer’s Job work site office by raising appropriate tax invoice and also generating e-Way Bill. The respondent submitted that the detention order dt.27.01.2020 and subsequent orders dt.04.02.2020 collecting tax and penalty are appealable orders under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, and the petitioner did not file any such appeal. 107. The court observed that without there being any order/decision passed by the respondent and communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be expected to file appeal invoking Section 107. Further, noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more cannot be said to be a contravention of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ Petition and declared the action of respondent in collecting the sum of Rs. 4,30,778/- from petitioner on 30.01.2020 as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India, and also the provisions of Act, and also the Circular CBEC/20/16/03/2017 – GST dt.14.09.2018, and directed the respondents to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from 30.01.2020 till date of payment within 6 weeks.
A mere omission to mention the address of delivery where the same is different from the place of supply in the e-Way Bill, cannot be a ground for the respondent to presume that there is an intention to violate the law or to evade tax.
It is important to note that interpretation of taxing statutes should be done in a way to facilitate business and inter-State trading, and not in a perverse manner which would result in impediment of the same by harassing business persons.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit – The petitioner challenged the detention order and submitted that the driver of the vehicle produced all documents such as Tax Invoice and e-Way Bill but the vehicle was detained on the ground wrong destination is noticed. The petitioner got released his vehicle by depositing total tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 4,30,778/- under protest. The petitioner submitted that there was no intention or attempt on his part to evade tax, and to save unnecessary transport charges and also time, it had asked the driver of the vehicle to deliver goods directly to the petitioner’s customer’s Job work site office by raising appropriate tax invoice and also generating e-Way Bill. The respondent submitted that the detention order dt.27.01.2020 and subsequent orders dt.04.02.2020 collecting tax and penalty are appealable orders under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, and the petitioner did not file any such appeal. 107. The court observed that without there being any order/decision passed by the respondent and communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be expected to file appeal invoking Section 107. Further, noticing the conveyance at a wrong destination’ without anything more cannot be said to be a contravention of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ Petition and declared the action of respondent in collecting the sum of Rs. 4,30,778/- from petitioner on 30.01.2020 as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India, and also the provisions of Act, and also the Circular CBEC/20/16/03/2017 – GST dt.14.09.2018, and directed the respondents to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from 30.01.2020 till date of payment within 6 weeks.