Case Law Details
Abhishek Sales Vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction: The case of Abhishek Sales vs State of U.P. and 2 Others before the Allahabad High Court deals with the imposition of penalties under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner challenges the penalty imposed due to a discrepancy in the vehicle number in the consignment note.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Grounds of Imposition: The petitioner’s counsel argues that although the vehicle was changed during transportation, the transporter updated the new vehicle number in Part-B of the GST e-waybill. Despite this, penalties were levied based on discrepancies in the consignment note.
2. Rejection of Grounds: The court rejects the grounds for penalty imposition. Firstly, it acknowledges the e-waybill update to reflect the changed vehicle number, rendering the discrepancy in the consignment note irrelevant. Secondly, it dismisses the absence of a private marka on the bags as insufficient evidence of tax evasion.
3. Legal Rationale: The court emphasizes that the e-waybill accurately reflected the goods being transported and that the change in vehicle necessitated updating the e-waybill, not the consignment note. Moreover, it highlights that the absence of a private marka on bags does not imply tax evasion.
4. Quashing of Orders: Considering the lack of legal basis, the court quashes the impugned orders and directs the refund of any deposited amounts to the petitioner within four weeks.
Conclusion: The Allahabad High Court’s judgment in Abhishek Sales vs State of U.P. and 2 Others clarifies that updating the GST e-waybill to reflect changes in the vehicle number suffices to avoid penalties for discrepancies in the consignment note. This ruling ensures fairness and adherence to legal procedures in taxation matters, providing relief to affected parties.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated December 29, 2018 passed by the respondent No.3 under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the subsequent order dated December 10, 2019 passed in appeal by the respondent No.3.
3. Mr. Subham Agrawal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the present case, the vehicle was changed in route and when the said change took place, the transporter uploaded and changed the new vehicle number in Part-B of the e-way bill. He further submits that the authorities intercepted the goods and imposed penalty on the following grounds:-
(i) The bilty and the invoice that were accompanying the goods reflected the erstwhile truck number that has been used in the first part of the transportation.
(ii) The Private Marka mentioned in the bilty was not specifically mentioned in the bags carrying the goods.
5. It is to be noted that the goods were in order and the e-way bill was also as per the goods that were being transported.
6. Upon perusal of the documents, it is clear that Part-B of the e-way bill has been changed due to change of the vehicle. It is obvious that when a vehicle is changed, the number in the bilty could not be changed as the goods were in transit. Consequently, the first ground is baseless and is rejected out rightly.
7. The second ground that private marka was not mentioned in the bags carrying the goods does not in any manner raise a presumption of evasion of tax.
8. In light of the above, the impugned orders are without any basis in law and are accordingly quashed and set-aside. Consequential reliefs to follow. Any amount that has been deposited by the petitioner is directed to be refunded to him within a period of four weeks from date.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
Author Bio
