Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + HC GST - 2023 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 721 - HC - GSTLevy of tax and penalty - Failure to produce E-way Bill for certain items - tax and penalty were imposed only upon the goods which were not accompanied with any document i.e. GRs, Invoices and/or E-way bills. - all the invoices carried by driver were not accepted to be complete and accurate, due to non-production of E-way bills - complete set of invoices were submitted with the Appellate Authority later on - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to 101 of Amendment of the Constitution three enactments were passed by the Parliament i.e. the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - In addition to the aforesaid three enactments, the Legislature of the State of Haryana on 08.06.2017 passed an enactment known as the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (HGST Act). In matters of inter-State trade and commerce, including import into the territory of India and out of it, the IGST Act, 2017 applies, whereas in matters of intra-State trade and commerce “the CGST Act, 2017” and the State Goods Services Tax Act apply. Reference was made to the pronouncement of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of ADVANTAGE INDIA LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2018 (9) TMI 1417 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of SATYENDRA GOODS TRANSPORT CORP. THRU. PROP. BHUWAN KOHLI & A VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. TAX & REGISTRATION & OTHERS [2018 (4) TMI 807 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] - the two judgments are on the proposition that cross empowerment under Section 4 of the IGST Act, 2017 and Section 6 of the CGST Act, 2017 means that State Authorities are empowered under the HGST Act, 2017 can also enforce the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 or IGST Act, 2017. After going through the departmental record, the Proper Officer had not imposed taxes and penalty upon the goods which were accompanied with aforesaid 11 invoices and GRs inspite of the fact that 3 invoices are without E-way bills and remaining 8 invoices having E-way bills which were also invalid due to non-entering of Part B or entering different conveyance number. Since from the date of inspection i.e. 08.09.2021 and even before the Appellate Authority, invoices of 9 goods and GRs were never produced by the driver when the goods were checked. Moreover, the driver had produced only 11 invoices and 11 GRs and 8 E-way bills and out of these 11 invoices, even 3 invoices were without E-way bills. Even the remaining 8 invoices having E-way bills were also invalid due to non-entering of Part B or entering different conveyance number, still the tax and penalty were not imposed upon the goods which were accompanied with 11 invoices and GRs and tax and penalty were imposed only for non-producing invoices and GRs with respect to 9 items and Polyester Fabric which was found in excess by 11,300 meters to that shown in the invoice No. 140/06.09.2021 of M/s. Jai Enterprises. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the fact that invoices relating to 9 items were never produced before the Proper Officer and Polyester Fabric was also found in excess by 11,300 meters to that shown in the invoice No. 140/06.09.2021. Appeal dismissed.
|