Shakuntalam Associates Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-V (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge by M/S Shakuntalam Associates to an order dated 30.04.2021 and an appellate order dated 23.10.2021 arising from detention and seizure of goods under section 129(3) of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Delhi and were accompanied by the requisite tax invoice, e-way bill, bilty and other documents, but the transporter’s name was not mentioned on the e-way bill. The goods were consequently detained and seized. According to the petitioner, the truck driver had stated that the goods were going to Rajendra Nagar, Pillar No. 171, Ghaziabad, but the actual movement involved the transporter’s godown at Chikamberpur, Delhi, from where the fully loaded vehicle was to be transported to Transport Nagar, Alipur, Delhi.
The petitioner further submitted that the tax invoice and GR specifically mentioned Chikamberpur, Delhi as the destination and that the truck number and other particulars were correctly reflected in the e-way bill.It was therefore argued that the omission of the transporter’s name was merely technical and did not establish any intention to evade payment of tax. The respondents supported the impugned orders, contending that the transporter’s name had not been disclosed and that the driver had initially stated that the goods were going to Ghaziabad. On examination of the record, the Court found that the goods were transported from Delhi to Delhi against tax invoice, e-way bill and other documents. Although the transporter’s name was absent from the e-way bill, the truck number and all other details were mentioned.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had specifically stated in the grounds of appeal that the goods had gone to the transporter’s godown for full truck load and that this assertion had not been denied at any stage. Most importantly, the Court found an absence of any finding regarding intention to evade payment of tax. Relying upon M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others, reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. (113) 331, and the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And another, reported in 2022 U.P.T.C. (110) 269 (SC), the Court held that in the absence of a finding regarding intention to evade payment of tax, penalty proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act could not be sustained. The Court accordingly held that the original order dated 30.04.2021 and the appellate order dated 23.10.2021 could not be sustained in law and quashed both orders. The writ petition succeeded and was allowed.
Cases Discussed
- M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others (Allahabad High Court)
- Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And another, reported in 2022 U.P.T.C. (110) 269 (SC)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Heard Shri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the State – respondents.
The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods in question were in transit from Delhi to Delhi accompanying with requisite documents, i.e., tax invoice, e-way bill, bilty, etc., but only on the e-way bill, the name of the transporter was not mentioned. On the said ground, the goods were detained and thereafter, seized and order under section 129(3) of the GST Act was passed. He further submits that the statement of the truck driver was recorded, who stated that the goods were coming from Delhi and were going to Rajendra Nagar, Pillar No. 171, Ghaziabad. On the said premise, the goods were seized, to which the petitioner filed detailed objection. Not being satisfied with the same, the impugned order was passed, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal specifically taking the ground that the goods were moving from Delhi to Delhi and the driver of the vehicle diverted his vehicle to transport company’s godwon at Chikamberpur so that fully loaded vehicle be transported to Transport Nagar, Alipur, Delhi. He further submits that it is a matter of common knowledge that between Delhi and Ghaziabad, there is no man’s land, where, various transport godwons are situated.
He further submits that wrong finding has been recorded that the place of destination was wrongly shown; whereas, the tax invoice and the GR specifically mention the place of destination as Chikamberpur, Delhi and the same are being mentioned in the e-way bill (Annexure No. 19 to the writ petition). He further submits that merely on a technical ground of breach for not mentioning the name of the transporter, the same will not amount to any intention to evade payment of tax.
Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that at no stage, the transporter’s name was disclosed or any documentary evidence was brought on record. He further submits that the driver, at the first instance, made a correct statement that the goods were going to Ghaziabad and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
The record shows that the goods were transported from Delhi to Delhi, against which tax invoice, e-way bill, etc. were issued. On perusal of the e-way bill (Annexure No. 19 to the writ petition), it is clear that the transporter’s name was not mentioned, but the truck number and all other details were clearly mentioned. An inference has been drawn on the statement of the truck driver that the goods were coming from Delhi meant for Ghaziabad. The record further shows that in the grounds of appeal, specific averment has been made that the goods gone for full truck load to its godwon, which has not been denied at any stage. Further, in absence of any finding with regard to intention to evade payment of tax, the penalty proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act cannot be attracted and therefore, the same cannot be justified as held by this Court in M/s. Varun Beverages Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 others reported in 2023 U.P.T.C. (113) 331 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. And another reported in 2022 U.P.T.C. (110) 269 (SC).
In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 30.04.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned appellate order dated 23.10.2021 passed by the respondent no. 1 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.
The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
