Case Law Details
Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Tripura (Tripura High Court)
Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has contended that there is no fraudulent intention or malafide act indulged by the petitioner. It was a lapse under very abnormal circumstances of lockdown and that aspect of the matter has not been considered at all. Moreover, Mr. Majumder has submitted that while imposing the penalty the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his authority as provided under Section 126 of the CGST Act and as reproduced above. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, even the general principles in imposing the penalty (see Section 126 of the CGST Act) has not been taken serious care of, in as much as Section 126 of the CGST Act parts on a direction on the officers who are authorized to impose tax. On considering the proportionality vis- a-vis the omission or mistake in documentation and mistake committed without fraudulent intent or gross negligence, the quantum of penalties is supposed to be recorded.
Mr. K.Dey, learned Addl.GA has submitted that true it is that the breach is covered under Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act. But the petitioner has committed gross negligence by not upgrading or amending the e-way bill when the regular e-way bill had expired in transit. The e-way bill was upgraded or amended when the consignment was detained. As such, there is no irregularity or lack of proportionality in imposing the penalty. Mr. Dey, learned Addl.GA has pointed out that the penalty has been imposed only for not tendering the valid e-way bill for the movement of the vehicle with goods. Tax and the penalty have been imposed as per the law. On query from this court, Mr. Dey has candidly submitted that in respect of the payment of the tax by the petitioner, the respondents have not stated anything specifically or in denying the statement in that regard.
Having appreciated the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the breach definitely falls within the ambit of Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty. But the pertinent question that falls for consideration is whether the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing the penalty? Having read the provisions of imposing penalty as provided under Section 122 of the CGST Act, we are of the view for the breach which falls under Section 122(xiv), the penalty is fixed @Rs.10,000/-. So far the penalty for an amount equivalent to tax is concerned those are for the incidents when the tax is sought to be evaded or not deducted under Section 51 etc. The other incidences as cataloged in Section 122 of the CGST Act are not relevant to the present case and as such we are of the firm view that the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while imposing the penalty. The penalty would have been Rs.10,000/-. As there is no dispute about the tax, we will not lay our hands on that aspect. Mr. Majumder has categorically stated that the petitioner has paid the said tax. We are also not accepting that statement on the face of it. The revenue authority shall be at liberty to verify that fact to ascertain whether tax has been paid or not. In the event of nonpayment of tax the appropriate action be taken for realizing the said tax from the petitioner. But in the circumstances, we set 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 within a period of 1 month from today. If not paid, the action as prescribed by the statue be followed for realizing the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
