Santosh Mani Mishra Vs PROP (GSTAT Lucknow)
Summary: The GST Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench considered an appeal arising from detention of goods transported without an E-Way Bill and examined whether the surrounding circumstances established an intention to evade tax. The source order contains a party-description inconsistency: its cause title identifies Santosh Mani Mishra as the appellant and the Islam Trading Company-related party as respondent, while paragraph 1 describes the appellant as Revenue and paragraph 1.2 refers to M/s Islam Trading Company as the appellant.
The proceedings arose from transportation of 132.90 cubic feet of iron goods by M/s Islam Trading Company, Baheri, Bareilly, under Tax Invoice No. 29 dated 26.03.2018. The vehicle was intercepted by the Mobile Squad, Bareilly on 27.03.2018. The E-Way Bill was not available with the driver at the time of interception. Tax of Rs. 47,844/- and an equal penalty of Rs. 47,844/- were imposed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The first appellate authority, however, set aside the tax and penalty by order dated 24.09.2021 in Appeal No. APL/24/2018.
The Department contended that transportation without the mandatory E-Way Bill violated Rule 138 of the GST Rules and that subsequent production of the tax invoice, books of account, GST returns and proof of tax payment could not retrospectively cure the statutory violation. It further argued that the interception of the vehicle, nature of the goods, route and subsequent production of documents cumulatively indicated an intention to evade tax. The authorised representative also submitted that an E-Way Bill is generated online whereas the tax invoice is manually issued, leaving scope for subsequent manipulation of books of account.
