Case Law Details
Panasonic India Pvt Ltd Vs Addditional Commissioner And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The writ petition before the Allahabad High Court challenged an appellate order upholding detention and penalty under GST for goods transported with an expired e-way bill. The petitioner contended that the goods were accompanied by all requisite documents, including a tax invoice, goods receipt, and an e-way bill generated on 15.06.2018, which expired on 16.06.2018. The delay in transit was explained as being caused by the driver leaving the vehicle at the consignor’s premises to celebrate Eid without informing the consignor. When the goods resumed transit, they were intercepted on 18.06.2018. Before any detention or seizure order was passed, a fresh e-way bill was generated and produced.
The authorities nevertheless detained the goods, drawing an inference of tax evasion without recording any concrete finding or material evidence. The Court found that such an inference was unsupported by the record. It noted that the new e-way bill was produced prior to seizure and that the authorities failed to establish any intent to evade tax. Relying on binding precedent, the Court held that mere expiry of an e-way bill, in the absence of intent to evade tax and when corrective action was taken promptly, could not justify detention and penalty.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned appellate order, allowed the writ petition, and directed refund of any amount deposited pursuant to the impugned order within one month from production of a certified copy of the judgment.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.02.2020 passed by respondent no.1 in the GST Appeal No.1147/2019, A.Y.-2018-19.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the goods were in transit from Alipur, New Delhi to to Rajnagar, Ghaziabad along with all requisite document i.e. tax invoice, G.R. and e-way bill, but the e-way bill accompanying the goods in transit had expired on 16.06.2018.
4. He further submits that though the e-way bill and the other documents were generated on 15.06.2018, but could not moved on 16.06.2018 as the driver of the vehicle left the goods and and vehicle in question at the business premises of the consignor and to celebrate Eid with his family at Rampur, U.P. without informing the consignor. Thereafter, on 17.06.2018, the driver came back to the business premises of the consignor and left for Ghaziabad with the vehicle and the goods in question, which was intercepted on 18.06.2018 by respondent no.2 at T.P. Nagar, Ghaziabad and the goods in question were detained/seized on the ground that the goods in question were being transported beyond the validity of transit period mentioned on the e-way bill accompanying the goods in question, however, the new e-way bill was generated and the same was produced even before the seizure/detention order could be passed and therefore, no intention to evade the payment of of tax can be attributed, but the authorities have not given due weightage to it.
5. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court passed in the case of M/S Aa Plastics Pvt Ltd Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and 2 others (Writ Tax No. 1006 of 2022) as well as he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the cases of Assistant Commissioner (ST) Vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 (57) G.S.T.L. 97 (S.C.).
6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. He submits that the documents were generated on 15.06.2025, but the goods were seized on 18.06.2018 i.e. two days after. He further submits that in the garb of e-way bill, the petitioner might have transported the goods in question to its destination without having valid e-way bill and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated.
7. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the record.
8. It is not in dispute that the goods in question were accompanied with the requisite documents including the e-way bill which was generated on 15.06.2018, and at the time of interception, the same was produced which had expired on 16.06.2018, and therefore, an inference has been drawn against the petitioner meaning thereby the petitioner in the garb of documents such as tax invoice dated 15.06.2018 and e-way bill generated on 15.06.2018, must have taken the multiple rounds to U.P. and evaded the tax. The said observation is without any basis or material in support thereof.
9. The record shows otherwise. The new e-way bill was generated and was presented before the detention/seizure order could be passed, the authorities have also failed to record any finding to evade payment of tax. In short, first, the e-way bill dated 15.06.2018 is alleged to be expired on 16.06.2018, but no weightage has been given for the new e-way bill, which was also presented before passing of the seizure and the penalty order.
10. The issue in hand is covered by the judgment of Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd., (supra).
11. In view of the above facts as stated as well as law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
13. Any amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Author Bio
