Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Sanskruthi Motors Vs Joint Commissioner (Kerala High Court)
Appeal Number : WP(C) No. 17223 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 17/08/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Sanskruthi Motors Vs Joint Commissioner (Kerala High Court)

Held that the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill. Hence, imposition of penalty/ tax on allegation that there was ample time to revalidate the e-way bill not justified as there was no finding of any attempt to evade tax.

Facts- The petitioner is in the business of transportation of goods. It has an agreement with M/s. Tata Motors Limited for the transportation of commercial and passenger vehicles and chassis, which are driven to various destinations as required by that company. The petitioner, at the request of M/s. Tata Motors Limited, transported a new tipper lorry (the goods) from Tamil Nadu to Kozhikode, Kerala. The vehicle was intercepted and detained by the Assistant State Tax Officer of the Kerala GST Department, and a show cause notice was issued on 9.7.2019 at 12.20 p.m. It was found that the e-way bill had expired on 8.7.2019.

Since the vehicle was detained, the petitioner moved to the High Court, and the lorry was directed to be released on the production of a bank guarantee. Following the directions of the Court, the notice was adjudicated and Ext. P3 order was issued on 16.8.2019, imposing a penalty on the petitioner along with a demand for IGST. The petitioner preferred Ext. P4 appeal against Ext. P3 order under Section 107 of the CGST/SGST Acts.

Conclusion- Division bench in the case of Satyam Shivam has held that the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill. In Ext P.3 (the impugned order), the explanation offered by the petitioner has been rejected, stating that no evidence of repair being carried out has been produced. The further justification for imposing a penalty/tax is that the petitioner had ample time to revalidate the E-way bill. There is no finding in Ext P.3 that there was any attempt to evade tax.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031