GST

Supreme Court orders release of vehicle detained for not uploading part-B of e-way bill

SC orders release of vehicle detained for not uploading part-B of e-way bill when the penalty upheld by the High Court had already been paid

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2524 (2018) 09 SC

The Petitioner company was a National Level Courier company. The vehicle of the petitioner company was intercepted and checked. On enquiry, the driver (person incharge of a conveyance) of the vehicle produced the bill and challan, but on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner transporter company had not uploaded/updated the part-B of the e-way bill which is a required condition to be fulfilled in accordance with the Goods and Service Tax Rules, of the State.

Since the petitioner had failed to give the details in Part-B of the e-way bill i.e., the details of conveyance in the e-way bill and the common portal in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01, proceeding was initiated and penalty was imposed since he was transporting the taxable goods without the cover of documents.

The stand of the company was that due to technical error, Part-B of the e-way bill could not be updated was not accepted by the authority because the portal of the goods or service tax provides for an option of grievance in case the petitioner was having any problem in updating the Part-B of the e-way bill. No such grievance has been raised by the petitioner and he has never given any written grievance so that the grievance with regard to the updating the technical error could not have been considered.

The company approached to the High Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 praying for quashment of order passed by the GST Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner of State Tax, and order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax wherein demand and penalty imposed had been upheld and the petitioner was directed to pay the amount

The High Court observed that the distance was more than 1200-1300 kilometers and it was mandatory for the petitioner to file the Part-B of the e-way bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in the vehicle.

Thus, the Hon’ble High Court opined that the Petitioner admittedly violated the provisions of the Rules and Act of 2017 and, Authority rightly imposed the penalty and directed the petitioner to pay the same.

The company, against the judgment of the High Court, filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

As an interim measure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that having regard to the facts of the case, more particularly when the petitioner had already paid the tax and other dues which were being demanded, the vehicle which was seized along with the consignments should be released to the petitioner.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without making a reference to the DVO - ITAT In a recent…

4 days ago
  • FCRA

FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied

FCRA specifies list of purposes to be selected for which registration is applied.  The Ministry of Home Affairs has notified…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company

Assessee was not liable to withhold tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company In a…

1 week ago
  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

2 weeks ago