Kapil Transport Company Vs State of U.P (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s Kapil Transport Company through its proprietor Kakkumal, challenging the penalty imposed under Section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf held that transporting goods without the requisite invoices and e-way bills, coupled with failure to explain the discrepancies, gave rise to a rebuttable presumption of intention to evade tax. Since the petitioner failed to produce evidence rebutting that presumption, the Court found no justification for interfering with the penalty order dated 21 November 2019 or the appellate order dated 13 February 2020.
The dispute arose when the authorities detained a vehicle carrying an invoice describing the goods as sindoor. Part B of the e-way bill had not been completed. On inspection, however, no sindoor was found in the vehicle. Instead, the vehicle contained 21 different categories of goods, including engine oil, urea water, iron hinges, footwear components, household utensils, kitchen accessories, plastic products, sports shoes and other footwear. None of those goods was accompanied by a corresponding invoice or e-way bill.
The Assistant Commissioner (Incharge), Commercial Tax Mobile Squad, Agra, passed an order under Section 129(3) imposing a penalty under Section 129(1)(b). In the statutory appeal under Section 107(11), the Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Agra, granted partial relief concerning the sindoor mentioned in the invoice because no such goods were actually found in the vehicle. The appellate authority nevertheless sustained the adverse findings relating to the other 21 categories of goods, which were transported without supporting documents. Before the High Court, the decisive issue was whether the absence of invoices and e-way bills for the goods actually transported justified sustaining the penalty. The Court noted the concurrent factual findings of the adjudicating and appellate authorities that the goods were unsupported by the prescribed documents. It further observed that the petitioner could not justify the non-production of invoices and e-way bills. In these circumstances, a presumption of intention to evade tax arose. Although that presumption was rebuttable, the petitioner had produced no evidence sufficient to rebut it.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated November 21, 2019 passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner (Incharge) Commercial Tax Mobile Squad, Agra and the order in appeal dated February 13, 2020 passed under Section 107(11) of the Act by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner, Grade-2 (Appeal), Commercial Tax, Agra.
2. It is to be noted that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act and thereafter in appeal certain relief was granted to the petitioner.
3. The factual matrix in the present case is that the vehicle was carrying invoice showing that the goods being transported was “sindoor”. Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up. Upon detention, it was found that there was no “sindoor” in the vehicle and there were 21 other items such as (i) 50 Nag urea water, (ii) 640 liter engine oil, (iii) 160 kilograms iron hinges, (iv) 180 piece Chakla, (v) 1 Nag footwear sole, (vi) 720 piece footwear paddle, (vii) 580 piece lighter, (viii) 480 piece Chhilni, (ix) 420 piece Kaddukash, (x) 220 piece Khallad, (xi) 100 kilograms footwear Talva sole, (xii) 24 piece pump part, (xiii) 132 piece plastic tokari, (xiv) 240 piece plastic brush (xv) 480 piece slicer (xvi) 192 piece blender cutter, (xvii) 144 piece Atta Chalni, (xviii) 1632 piece Sabundani, (xix) 280 Jodi sport shoes, (xx) 474 piece toilet brush and (xxi) 440 Jodi footwear. However, neither there was any invoice in relation to the above goods nor e-way bill in support of the same.
4. In the appeal, certain benefit was granted to the petitioner with regard to “sindoor” as it was found that though an invoice was present, however, no such “sindoor” was present in the truck. Accordingly, the penalty for the “sindoor” was reduced. In relation to other items, there is a clear fact finding by both the authorities that goods were not accompanied by any invoice or e-way bill.
5. Upon a perusal of the order in appeal, it is crystal clear that the petitioner could not justify the reasons for non production of the invoice and the e-way bill. In such cases, a presumption automatically arises that there was an intention to evade tax. This presumption would be rebuttable. However, the petitioner was not able to bring any evidence to rebut the said presumption of evasion of tax. In light of the same, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
