Home Judgments & Orders Tripura High Court Tripura High Court Reduces Penalty Amount To Rs. 10,000 For E-Way Bill...

Tripura High Court Reduces Penalty Amount To Rs. 10,000 For E-Way Bill Expiry

432

The Tripura High Court on 7th January deleted the penalty equal to tax amount for E-way Bill Expiry and imposed Rs. 10,000 penalty.

The petitioner, M/s Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd has challenged the Order passed by the Superintendent of State Tax, North Tripura wherein the liability of the petitioner of paying the CGST and SGST has been determined Rs.3,56,990. Moreover, since the petitioner could not produce the valid e-way bill against the vehicle by which the consignment relating to invoice No SGIEL/19-20/161, an aggregate penalty of Rs.3,56,990/-, equivalent to the tax payable, was imposed.

Learned counsel, on behalf of petitoner has fairly stated that only violation that has been noticed by the taxing authority is of not carrying the valid e-way bill against the said invoice. Even in the detention order dated 18.05.2020, as examined by us, the only ground of detention, as shown, is that no e-way bill was tendered for the goods in movement. That is the only solitary ground in the notice, as issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act etc.

A bench of Justice S.Talapatra and Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay said,” we are satisfied that the breach definitely falls within the ambit of Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty. But the pertinent question that falls for consideration is whether the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing the penalty? Having read the provisions of imposing penalty as provided under Section 122 of the CGST Act, we are of the view for the breach which falls under Section 122(xiv), the penalty is fixed @Rs.10,000/-. 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. The other incidences as cataloged in Section 122 of the CGST Act are not relevant to the present case and as such we are of the firm view that the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction while imposing the penalty. The penalty would have been Rs.10,000/-.”

Read Order:

[tnc-pdf-viewer-iframe file=”https://dailylawtimes.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Sri_GopiKrishna_HC.pdf” width=”600″ height=”800″ download=”true” print=”true” fullscreen=”true” share=”true” zoom=”true” open=”true” pagenav=”true” logo=”true” find=”true” current_view=”true” rotate=”true” handtool=”true” doc_prop=”true” toggle_menu=”true” language=”en-US” page=”” default_zoom=”auto” pagemode=””]

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here