S.No

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

If Transitional
credit could not
be transitioned
due to Technical
Glitches and
was claimed in
GSTR-3B, then
no Interest and
penalty would
be payable on
reversal of such
credit claimed in
GSTR-3B and
reavailment
through TRAN-1

PMA Controls
India Ltd. v. Joint
Commissioner of
Central Tax
(Appeals-II) [2023]
155 taxmann.com
502 (Madras) (20-
09-2023)

Petitioner was a Central Excise Assessee, who had a sum of Rs. 12,47,610/- as un-utilized ITC as on 30-6-2017. The credit was sought to be transitioned by
the petitioner and an attempt was made by the petitioner on 27-12-2017. However, petitioner was unable to transition the credit on account of technical glitches.
Meanwhile, the petitioner had wrongly availed ITC in GSTR-3B on 19-10-2018 for the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,47,610/- in its Electronic Credit Ledger and
had utilized the same for discharging tax liability. Meanwhile, the petitioner was issued with a SCN dated 19-7-2021 to show cause as to why the aforesaid
amount of Rs. 12,47,610/-, which was wrongly claimed as Input Tax Credit in Form GSTR-3B on 19-10-2018 should not be denied. Thereafter, petitioner made
a further attempt on 17-8-2021 to transition the aforesaid Credit, which was allowed by the system. After the credit to an extent of Rs. 12.43 lakhs was
transitioned of Rs. 12,47,610/- on 17-8-2021, petitioner immediately debited the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,47,610/- which was claimed and utilized earlier.
Petitioner challenged the levy interest as it was stated that no prejudice was caused to the revenue by availing of the ITC on 19-10-2018 as the aforesaid
amount could not be transitioned due to technical glitches as petitioner tried to file Form Tran-1 on 27-12-2017 but was unsuccessful due to technical glitches.
The Court observed that the issue was revenue neutral. Petitioner was entitled to transition the ITC lying unutilized in his CENVAT account as on 30-6-2017 of
GST under the new regime. However, on account of technical glitches, credit could not be transitioned. It was however later allowed to be transitioned after
the petitioner's Tran-1 application in Form Tran-1 was accepted by the respondents on 17-8-2021. The petitioner reversed proportionate amount of ITC, which
was wrongly availed and utilized. Thus, as the issue was revenue neutral, the imposition of penalty/interest either under section 73(9) or Section 50(3) of the
CGST Act, 2017, cannot be countenanced. Also, if petitioner had been allowed to successfully transition the credit, then and there, the amount would have
available for being utilization. By availing the amount as regular credit and utilizing the same, the petitioner has not caused any loss to the revenue.
Case Referred- W.P.No.22241 of 2019 vide order dated 20-6-2022 (Mad HC)

2

ITC cannot be
denied merely
on account of
mismatch in ITC
claimed in
GSTR-3B and
not reflecting in
GSTR-2A

Praveen
Bhaskaran v.
Union of India
[2023] 155
taxmann.com 466
(Kerala) (20-09-
2023

Petitioner claimed ITC to the extent of Rs. 1,04,342/- and the same was denied on the ground that ITC to such an extent claimed was not affected in Form
GSTR-2A and the supply dealer has not mentioned the supplies involved in the petitioner-dealer in form GSTR -1.
The Court observed that Section 155 of the GST Act, 2017, takes care of such a situation wherein the fact that the assessee/dealer has taken inward supply,
and the dealer has prepaid the admissible GST to the supplier-dealer and the supplier-dealer has not deposited the said tax amount to the Government. In
such a situation the burden is on the person who claims the ITC to prove his claim. The paid person in such a situation is required to furnish documentary
evidence to prove that such tax has been paid by him. The assessing authority denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the ITC claimed by the
petitioner was not reflected in GSTR-2A and he did not submit any proof of the payment of the GST to the Government. The court stated that the assessing
officer was required to give an opportunity to the assessee in respect of his claim for ITC, if there was difference between GSTR- 2A and GSTR-3B. If on
examination of the evidence, the assessing officer was satisfied that the claim was bonafide and genuine, the assessee should be given the ITC. Merely on
the ground that in Form GSTR-2A the tax to an extent of ITC being claimed by the petitioner was not reflected should not be sufficient to deny the claim. The
assessing authority was required to independently examine the evidence irrespective of the fact that tax was not reflected in Form GSTR-2A for which the
assessee claimed ITC.
Case Referred-Diya Agencies v. The State Tax Officer in its judgment dated 12-9-2023, Union of India (UOI) v. Bharti Airtel Ltd and Others [2022(4) SCC
328], Suncraft Energy Private Limited and Another v. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge and others [MAT 1218 of 2023] (Cal), The
State of Karnataka v. M/s. Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private Limited [2023 (3) TMI 533 SC

3

No penalty in
absence of
mens rea when
time gap
between expiry
of Eway Bill &
interception is 9
Hours

shaan Plastics
(P.) Ltd. v. Deputy
Commissioner of
State Tax [2023]
155 taxmann.com
463 (Calcutta) (20-
09-2023)

The adjudicating authority imposed penalty for transporting the vehicle in question after expiry of e-way bill which was expired on 27.12.2022 at 11.59 p.m.
and the vehicle in question was intercepted at 8.37 a.m. on 28.12.2022 that there was a time gap between the expiry of the bill and interception of the vehicle
in question is about 9 hrs., which was less than a day and writ petitioner submitted that there was no intention of any evasion of tax on the part of the petitioner.
The Court observed that the respondents could not make out any case against the petitioner that there was any deliberate or willful intention of the petitioner
to avoid and evade the tax. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which appeared from record and considering the two earlier orders of the Court,
impugned order was set aside and a consequence, petitioner was held to be entitled to get refund of penalty deposited in question.
Case Referred- Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durgapur Range WPA No. 11085 of 2021, Order dated 12th May, 2022 in MAT
No. 470 of 2022.

4

One Liner Order
without
considering the
submissions of
Taxpayer is not
a speaking
Order

C.Siva Anand v.
Superintendent of
GST and Central
Excise [2023] 155
taxmann.com 439
(Madras) (29-09-
2023)

The petitioner stated that he had paid entire tax through ITC and if this fact was considered there would not be any tax liability. But authority had imposed
tax, penalty, and interest. Moreover, petitioner had already paid the entire tax even prior to the initiation of assessment proceedings. In the impugned order,
respondent did not discuss any ground raised by the petitioner and it was one-line order. The relevant portion of the impugned order was as follows:
“But they failed to pay the interest till date. Their reply dated 26.04.2023 is also not tenable. Hence, I hold that they are liable to pay an interest amount of Rs.
6,04,427/-.”
The Court quashed the impugned order as it was a non-speaking order and the matter was remitted back to consider the petitioner's case in light of M/s.
Refex Industries Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, reported in 2020(2) TMI 794 – Madras

S.No

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

No Requirement
to check intent
to evade

Sterile India (P.) Ltd. v.
Union of India [2023]
149 taxmann.com 5
(Punjab & Haryana)

The Court observed that for the purpose of Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 there is no requirement that there should be intention to
evade tax. The authorities are not required to establish intention to evade payment of tax. It was stated that Section 129 has been enacted to check
evasion of tax. If the goods are intercepted during transit and the documents accompanying the goods are not in compliance with the provisions of the
Act, authorities are within their power to detain the goods and demand payment of tax and 100% penalty under the provisions. It was further observed by
the Court that the petitioner did not deny that payment under Section 129(3) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 had been made. Therefore, keeping in view
the bare provision of Section 129 (5) it was further observed that all proceedings in respect to the notice were deemed to have been concluded

2

Intent to Evade
to be
established for
levy of penalty
for movement
with Expired Eway Bill

Shree Govind Alloys
(P.) Ltd. v. State of
Gujarat [2023] 148
taxmann.com 382
(Gujarat)

The Court observed that e-Way Bill had expired 41 hours before and the detention was also on the ground that the goods are of expiration of the e-Way
bill number, which had expired during the transit. The Court relied upon the decision in Govind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. v. State of U.P., [2022] 140
taxmann.com 383 (Ahhahabad) wherein it was held that as there is expiry of e-Way bill on transit, the seizure of said vehicle and the goods is not
permissible under the law. It further relied upon the decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M/s. Daya Shaker Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh passed in Writ Petition No.12324 of 2022 on 10-8-2022, where also the Court had intervened considering the fact that the respondent could not
establish any element of evasion of tax with fraudulent intent or negligence on the part of the petitioner. The Court thereafter allowed the petition while
observing that the delay appeared to be bona fide and without establishing any fraudulent intention and there was no fraudulent intention for
this to happen.

3

No Penalty for
movement with
Expired Eway
Bill if mens rea
not proved by
Revenue

Orson Holdings
Company Ltd. v. Union
of India [2023] 147
taxmann.com 71
(Gujarat)

In the instant case, goods which were to be delivered, could not be delivered in time and when inspected, some of the e-Way bill numbers had shown
expired. The company was situated at Howrah, West Bengal and the place of delivery was Jamnagar, Gujarat and in transit, this e-Way bill has expired.
The Court held that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shree Govind Alloys (P.) Ltd. which has not been further
challenged and even otherwise, from the facts which are robust in nature, it can be gathered that there does not appear to be any ill-intent on
the part of the petitioner to use the expired e-Way bill

4

Mens Rea
needs to be
established by
the authority in
was of
movement of
goods with
Expired E-way
Bill

Sanskruthi Motors v.
Joint Commissioner
(Appeals) [2022] 145
taxmann.com 164
(Kerala)

The reason for invoking Section 129 of the CGST laws was that the e-way bill has expired. The Court distinguished the decision of Division Bench
of Kerala High Court in Renjilal Damodaran's case and took a different view as the Division Bench did not consider the question as to whether the
imposition of a major penalty along with a demand for IGST was justified for the reason that the e-way bill had expired. The Court relied upon the
judgement in the matter of Podaran Foods India (P.) Ltd.v. State of Kerala [2021] 123 taxmann.com 282 and also on the Judgement of Division Bench of
the Telangana High Court in Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd's case (supra) and stated that the officer was duty bound to consider the explanation
offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill. There was no finding that there was any attempt to evade tax. Further it was also observed
by the Court that the judgment of Telangana High Court in Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court and
the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by a speaking order. In view of the aforesaid findings, the order was quashed and remanded back to
consider the amount of penalty to be imposed on the petitioner taking note of the findings in the Judgment

5

Intent to Evade
required to be
proved in case
of movement of
goods with
Expired Eway
Bill and
applicability of
Section 126 for
levy of penalty
commensurate
to the breach

Daya Shanker Singh v.
State of Madhya
Pradesh [2022] 142
taxmann.com 266
(Madhya Pradesh)

E-way Bill was valid upto 19-5-2022 and truck was intercepted on 20-5-2022 at 4.35 A.M. The petitioner contended that there was no element of tax
evasion, fraudulent intent and negligence on his part was not rebutted by learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner relied upon the judgement
by Telangana High Court in the matter of Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CST [2021] 127 taxmann.com 646/50 GSTL 459/5 GSTJ Online 174)
against which the revenue filed by SLP was dismissed with a speaking order in the matter of Asstt. CST v. Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd. [2022] 134
taxmann.com 241/57 GSTL 97/90 GST 479/[2022] 7 GSTJ Online 16 (SC). The reliance was also placed on the judgement of Calcutta High Court
in Ashok Kumar Sureka v. Asstt. Commissioner, State Tax Durgapur Range [2022] 7 GSTJ Online 78 (Cal.). The High Court observed that the revenue
could not establish that there exist any element of evasion of tax, fraudulent intent or negligence on the part of the petitioner and thus held
that in the above backdrop, the impugned notice/order could not have been passed. Further Court also observed that principles of natural justice
were statutorily recognized and ingrained alognwith doctrine of proportionality while bringing sub-section (1) of section 126 in the Statute Book and
punishment should be commensurate to the breach is the legislative mandate as per sub-section (1) of section 126. Thus, it was held that in the instant
case, the delay of almost 4:30 hours before which E-way Bill stood expired appeared to be bonafide and without establishing fraudulent intent
and negligence on the part of petitioner, the impugned notice/order could not have been passed

S.No

Case Subject

Held

1

Exemption only upon
establishing entitlement

The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an
exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has
been placed in the Statute and the object and purpose to be achieved.

2

Strict approach for deciding
Eligibility to claim Exemption
but may take liberal
approach for other conditions

Referring to Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 272, it was held that that the principles as regard construction of an exemption
notification are no longer res integra; whereas the eligibility clause in relation to an exemption notification is given strict meaning wherefor the notification has to be
interpreted in terms of its language, once an assessee satisfies the eligibility clause, the exemption clause therein may be construed literally.

3

Mandatory and Directory
conditions

If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. Some of the provisions of an exemption notification may be
directory in nature and some are of mandatory in nature. The mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some
latitude can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or
substance of the notification granting exemption. A distinction between provisions of statute which are of substantive character and were built in with certain specific
objectives of policy, on the one hand, and those which are merely procedural and technical in their nature, on the other, must be kept clearly distinguished.

4

What is the Principle of
Substantial Compliance

What is Principle of Substantial Compliance-This doctrine is a judicial invention, equitable in nature, designed to avoid hardship in cases where a party does all that
can reasonably expected of it, but failed or faulted in some minor or inconsequent aspects which cannot be described as the "essence" or the "substance" of the
requirements. Like the concept of "reasonableness", the acceptance or otherwise of a plea of "substantial compliance" depends upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and the purpose and object to be achieved and the context of the prerequisites which are essential to achieve the object and purpose of the rule or the
regulation. Such a defence cannot be pleaded if a clear statutory prerequisite which effectuates the object and the purpose of the statute has not been met.
Need for “Substantial Compliance”-Substantial compliance of an enactment is insisted, where mandatory and directory requirements are lumped together, for in such
a case, if mandatory requirements are complied with, it will be proper to say that the enactment has been substantially complied with notwithstanding the non- compliance
of directory requirements. In cases where substantial compliance has been found, there has been actual compliance with the statute, albeit procedurally faulty.
What “Substantial Compliance” seeks to preserve-The doctrine of substantial compliance seeks to preserve the need to comply strictly with the conditions or
requirements that are important to invoke a tax or duty exemption and to forgive non-compliance for either unimportant and tangential requirements or requirements that
are so confusingly or incorrectly written that an earnest effort at compliance should be accepted.
Test for determining the applicability of Principle-The test for determining the applicability is whether the requirements relate to the "substance" or "essence" of the
statute, if so, strict adherence to those requirements is a precondition to give effect to that doctrine. On the other hand, if the requirements are procedural or directory in
that they are not of the "essence" of the thing to be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict
compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be sufficient, but actual compliance of those factors which are considered as essential.
Role of the Court-Certainly, it means that the Court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which the statute
was enacted and not a mirror image type of strict compliance. The court should determine whether the statute has been followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent
of the statute and accomplish the reasonable objectives for which it was passed

5

What is the Principle of
Substantial Compliance

What was not condoned-Four conditions were imposed for grant of benefit of exemption in relation to the services provided for transport of certain goods from ICD to
Port of Export. One of the conditions so imposed was that the details of exporters invoice relating to the export goods should be specifically mentioned in the lorry receipt
and the corresponding shipping bill. Assessee did not fulfil the condition and refund was rejected. The court held that object of requiring the details of exporters invoice to
be mentioned in the lorry receipt and corresponding shipping bill was to ensure that what had reached port was the consignment of that exporter and that there was no
duplication of claim. Therefore, the relaxation of such a condition would tantamount to the removal of the very life breath of the notification.
What could have been condoned-What could at the most be done by Courts or even by the statutory authorities, is to condone certain insignificant requirements. For
instance, if an application for extension of the benefit of exemption has to be endorsed by someone, but was endorsed by some other person, the mistake can be
condoned as mere procedural in nature. But when the very availability of the benefit of exemption is made contingent upon the fulfilment of certain conditions, those
conditions cannot be dismissed as matters of procedure.

6

Commissioner of GST and
Central Excise v. Bharat
Electronics Ltd [2022] 136
taxmann.com 145 (Madras)

Relying upon the Judgement in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dilip Kumar & Co. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327/69 GST 239 which also referred CCE v. Hari
Chand Shri Gopal, (2011) 1 SCC 236 held that inadvertent mistake in filling in the wrong figures in Column 6 of Form TRAN-1 cannot prove fatal to the respondent's claim
of ITC, if Transitional Credit is denied even if they are otherwise entitled to, then it could frustrate the very objective of extending the benefit of transition of Input Tax
Credit from the erstwhile regime of GST

S.No

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Is intent to
evade be seen
in case of
Movement of
Goods with
Expired E-way
Bill

Pushpa Devi Jain
v. Assistant
Commissioner of
Revenue, [2023]
149 taxmann.com
206 (Calcutta) (03-
03-2023)

Petitioner relied upon the judgement delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satyam Shivam. The High Court observed that apart from a bald statement
that the vehicle broke down in the midst of the journey, there was no document in support of such statement. As long as the provision to revalidate the e-way
bill remained in the rule book, the same was required to be strictly complied despite the fact that the same may be practically difficult to implement. There is no
scope to exercise discretion at any stage and opportunity of hearing was given to allow the person in charge of the goods and/or the conveyance to produce
relevant documents to rebut the charge and not for examining the reason or ground for not being able to act in accordance with law. This Judgement was
reversed in Pushpa Devi Jain v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue [2023] 152 taxmann.com 239 (Calcutta) (21-03-2023) has been discussed
hereinafter

2

Levy of Penalty
dropped for
failure to extend
validity of Eway
Bill

Pushpa Devi Jain
v. Assistant
Commissioner of
Revenue [2023]
152 taxmann.com
239 (Calcutta) (21-
03-2023)

The goods were detained as e-way bill had expired at 11:59 hours on 22nd April, 2022 and it had to be revalidated by 8 a.m. on 23rd April, 2022. However, said
date was a Saturday and the vehicle was intercepted at 8.52 a.m. There was no other allegation against the petitioner. The High Court considered the peculiar
facts of the case and observed that there was no lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant to state that there was wilful misconduct committed by the
appellant while transporting the goods. There was every possibility that even if an application was made for extension of the e-way bill within the time
permitted, 23rd April, 2022 being a Saturday, the e-way bill, in all probabilities, would not have been revalidated within the eight hours period.
Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the order was set aside by holding that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the authority could not
have imposed penalty on the appellant

3

Intent to Evade
not to be seen in
cases wherein
goods
transferred to
another vehicle
and E-way Bill
not generated

Asian Switchgear
(P.) Ltd. v. State
Tax Officer [2023]
149 taxmann.com
120 (Calcutta) (03-
03-2023

The Court observed that the moment the goods are unloaded from the vehicle in respect of which e-way bill was generated and loaded in a different
vehicle without any e-way bill a statutory breach is committed, liable to be dealt with in accordance with the statute. It is not for the authority to
ascertain the reason as to why such action has been undertaken. There is no requirement in law to verify the reason for transporting goods in a vehicle
without a proper e-way bill. The Court further observed that decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Satyam Shivam does not fit into the facts of the present case,
and accordingly, the ratio laid down therein cannot be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. On the other hand, it relied upon the
precedence laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Guljag Industries wherein it was held that breach of statutory provision would attract levy of
penalty and the officer does not have any authority to either reduce or waive the penalty. They further held that decision of the same High Court in Ashok
Kumar Sureka cannot be treated as precedent. The High Court thereafter looking to admission of the petitioner that the vehicle in which the goods stood
transferred for being transported allegedly to the pre-recorded destination, did not have an e-way bill, held that Section 129 will be attracted in such a situation

4

No Intent to
evade to be
checked if
goods
transported
without valid Eway Bill

Abinash Kumar
Singh v. State of
West Bengal
[2023] 148
taxmann.com 393
(Calcutta) (03-03-
2023)

The Court observed that when the vehicle of the petitioner was intercepted, the same did not have a valid e-way bill. The e-way bill, on the basis of which the
goods were transported, expired prior to the vehicle reaching the final destination. Regarding no intent to evade being present, the High Court observed that if
the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, then the authority will be flooded with a plethora of reasons from the errant transporters for not being able to
deliver the goods within time. In such a situation, the authority may exercise discretion either to accept or reject the ground put forth for explaining the delay in
transportation. The same will give rise to an anomalous situation when the authority may adopt pick and choose method as per their choice and tend to exercise
discretion arbitrarily. Law does not provide such unbridled power and right to the authority. In case of statutory violations, the statutory consequential steps are
required to be undertaken. Thus, it was held that as section 129 opens with a non obstante clause which lends a mandatory character to the same,
thus petitioner might or might not have been directly responsible for the delay in issuance of the gate pass, but he was certainly at fault.

5

No Intent to
Evade to be
established in
case of
movement with
Expired E-Way
Bill

Ashok and Sons
(HUF) v. Joint
Commissioner,
State Tax [2023]
147 taxmann.com
582 (Calcutta) (06-
02-2023)

The Court observed that petitioner's consignment was found lying within the territory of the state for more than three days. The E-Way bill had expired. The
driver of the vehicle stated that the vehicle suffered a breakdown. In support of his contention he failed to produce proper document. The petitioner had the
opportunity to extend the validity of the E-Way bill when the goods vehicle was allegedly had mechanical defect. The petitioner did not take any step for
extension of E-Way bill. The High Court also held that the ratio laid down in Hanuman Ganga Hydroprojects (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Ashok Kumar Sureka (supra)
are not applicable in the instant case. The High Court held that when the E-Way bill has not been extended it would be presumed that the consignment
was sent to the State of West Bengal and therefore, the respondent authority was lawfully permitted to impose penalty under section 129 as well as
the SGST as the goods were found to be detained in the territory of the State

6

Vehicle
intercepted with
Cancelled Eway Bill and
matter
remanded back
to establish
bonafide

Rumki Biswas v.
Senior Joint
Commissioner,
Commercial Taxes
[2023] 148
taxmann.com 359
(Calcutta) (01-12-
2022)

In the instant matter appellant had generated part A of the e-way bill on 22nd March, 2022 and part - B was generated on 24th March, 2022. However, since the
goods could not be loaded into the vehicle, the appellant cancelled part A of e-way bill dated 22nd March, 2022 and generated new part A e-way bill on 24th
March, 2022. When the vehicle was intercepted, the driver was carrying part B of e-way bill in respect of which part A has been cancelled. The High Court
observed that the short point, which was required to be canvassed by the appellant before the appellate authority was to establish the bona fides
of the appellant and to prove that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. Since this aspect was not adequately dealt with by the appellate
authority and taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in the case on hand, matter was remand back to the appellate authority
for a fresh consideration bearing in mind the conduct of the appellant. The appellant was directed to place all the materials in support of their claim
without unnecessary burdening the appellate authority

S.No

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Goods could not be
taken to the
destination within the
time for reasons
beyond the control of
the taxpayer

Assistant
Commissioner (ST) v.
Satyam Shivam Papers
(P.) Ltd. [2022] 134
taxmann.com 241 (SC)

Upon our having made these observations, learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to submit that the questions of law in this case, as
regards the operation and effect of Section 129 and violation by the writ petitioner, may be kept open. The submissions sought to be made do not
give rise to even a question of fact what to say of a question of law. As noticed hereinabove, on the facts of this case, it has precisely been
found that there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioner to evade tax and rather, the goods in question could not be taken to the
destination within time for the reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioner. When the undeniable facts, including the traffic blockage
due to agitation, are taken into consideration, the State alone remains responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic

2

Provisions of Section
126 applicable in
case of Goods found
to be moved with
Expired E-way Bil

Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer
Kumar v. Commissioner
of CGST [2023] 149
taxmann.com 128
(Delhi)

In the instant case subject goods were intercepted on 29-9-2020 at 3:40 AM, by which time the e-way bill had expired. The High Court observed
that the order was passed on the same date on which SCN was issued i.e., 30-9-2020. Therefore, matter was remanded to take a fresh decision in
the matter, after giving the petitioner due opportunity to produce relevant material/evidence to establish its case, that the delay in transporting the
goods to their destination was on account of genuine reasons. It was further directed by the High Court to the Proper Officer that while carrying
out this exercise, the concerned officer will also bear in mind, the provisions of section 126, which inter alia adverts to omission or mistake
in documentation which is easily rectifiable.

3

Transporters are
mandated not to
transport goods basis
expired E-Way Bills

C. Ranganathan v.
Commissioner of
Commercial Tax [2022]
139 taxmann.com 215
(Madras)

The petitioners are in the business of transportation of goods. They have to be careful and cautious while transporting goods. They cannot allow the
employer who employs them for transportation of the goods to evade tax. If the goods are being removed in the clandestine manner on the strength
either expired e-way bills or forged/fabricated invoice, the petitioners are not expected to transport the goods. At the same time, no useful purpose
will be served by allowing the vehicles to be detained any longer as the vehicles will loose their intrinsic value. There is also no evidence to suggest
that the respective petitioners conspired with the said M/s. Prime Gold International Private Limited to facilitate evasion of tax

4

Goods unloaded after
validity period
although vehicle
reached the
destination within the
prescribed time

State of Karnataka v.
Hemanth Motors [2021]
133 taxmann.com 323
(Karnataka)

It was argued by the Department that unloading was not done until 5.00 p.m. on the next day and therefore, the goods cannot be transported without
seeking extension of validity period of E-way bill. It was further contended that E-way bill for all practical purposes had expired on the midnight of 1-
1-2019 and therefore, it was incumbent upon taxpayer to seek extension of validity of said E-way Bill as provided under the proviso to rule 138(10).
The High Court observed that the Single Judge in his order has clearly stated that the conveyance had reached the destination on 1-1-
2019 at 11.00 p.m. which was well within the prescribed validity period under the E-way bill. The contention of the authorities that the
consignment was being delivered on 2-1-2019 and therefore, the goods cannot be transported cannot be acceded to. The materials on
record clearly indicate that the action by the authorities was taken at the destination and not during transit and therefore, an inference has to drawn
that the conveyance had reached the destination well within the subsistence of the valid period stipulated under the E-way bill. Thus, the High Court
declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge

5

No Penalty on
movement with
Expired E-way Bill, if
intent to evade
absent

Balaji Steel Rolling Mills
Ltd. v. State of Tripura
[2023] 147
taxmann.com 417
(TRIPURA)

E-Way bills' were generated on 02-02-2020 which were valid upto 15-2-2020. But owing to some unforeseen circumstances, the movement
of the said vehicles was delayed. The said vehicles reached Churaibari on 17-2-2020. Claiming 'e-Way bills' have expired, GST authoritiesimposed duty with penalty. High Court allowed the petition holding that 'e-Way bills' had expired during the transit and the petitioner was
not able to ask for its renewal to the competent authority when vehicle entered into the territory of the State of Tripura. In view of the said
fact, order dated 6-4-2021 passed by the Appellate Authority was held not to be proper and was be set aside

6

Intent to Evade
required to be
established in case of
expiry of E-way Bill
due to circumstances
beyond the control of
the Taxpayer

NE Equipment
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Tripura [2022]
138 taxmann.com 96
(TRIPURA)

The High Court observed that vehicle arrived at Churaibari check post carrying proper e-way bill and within the validity period of the eway bill and the validity expired on account of unforeseen and unexpected delay in crossing the check post. The issue was cleared nd
the process, however, took more than 24 hours and in the meantime, the validity of the e-way bill expired. Though petitioner generated a
new e-way bill, the GST department of the State was not prepared to accept it. High Court held that allowing the department to detain the
machinery would be wholly impermissible. The fault of the petitioner if at all was rather technical. The tax authorities must make a clear distinction
between deliberate tax evasion and technical or minor defects which manifest no intention to evade tax. When IGST liability has been
fully discharged, no intention can be attributed on part of the petitioner to evade tax., High Court thus allowed the machinery to be released
upon undertaking being filed by petitioner that subject to appeal and further right to challenge, if liability is crystallized, he would discharge the same

7

Movement of Goods
with Expired E-way
Bill falls within
Section 122(1)(xiv)
and leviable with a
penalty of Rs 10000

Sri Gopikrishna
Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.
v. State of Tripura*
[2021] 125
taxmann.com 291
(TRIPURA)

The competent authority detained goods of assessee under transport on plea that vehicle was carrying expired e-way bill and imposed a
tax of Rs. 3.56 lacs and penalty of Rs. 3.56 lacs (equivalent to tax payable) upon it. The High Court held that the breach falls within the
ambit of section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty. The High Court further observed that so far
the penalty for an amount equivalent to tax is concerned those are for the incidents when the tax is sought to be evaded or not deducted under
section 51 etc and as such we are of the firm view that the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while imposing the penalty. As
there is no dispute about the tax, we will not lay our hands on that aspect. The High Court set aside the order of penalty and directed the petitioner
to pay the sum of Rs. 10,000/- as penalty for the breach which is covered under section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act