9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 528 - HC - GSTLevy of penalty - failure to produce a valid e-way bill - petitioner contends that the imposition of penalty is illegal as the petitioner did not have any deliberate intention to evade tax - Reasonable opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner - Principles of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - HELD THAT - The petitioner admits that when the vehicle was intercepted the e-way bill was invalid. The petitioner being aware of the legal consequences did not raise objection and paid the penalty that was imposed. The appeal filed was also very formal and the petitioner was unable to rebut the charge of transporting goods without a valid e-way bill - From the documents available before the Court it does not appear that the petitioner genuinely intended to contest the charge brought against her. On the contrary the petitioner without any objection deposited the penalty amount. It seems that the petitioner is raising all the issues for the first time before the High Court in the present proceeding. The practice and procedure to obtain way bill electronically from the portal suggests that there is minimal manual interference and there is no scope to exercise discretion at any stage. Opportunity of hearing is 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 - In RAMJI JAISWAL ANR VERSUS STATE TAX OFFICER BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (SOUTH BENGAL) KHARAGPUR ZONE ORS. 2022 (7) TMI 1384 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT the Hon ble Court opined that the respondents could not make out any case of deliberate or wilful intention to avoid and evade payment of tax. In GULJAG INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER 2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT while considering the provision of Section 78 and its various sub-Sections of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 the Hon ble Supreme Court held that in penalty for statutory offences there is no question of proving of intention or of mens rea as the same is excluded from the category of essential element for imposing penalty. Penalty is attracted as soon as there is contravention of statutory obligations. Intention of parties committing such violation is wholly irrelevant. The Supreme Court on repeated occasions has held that a statutory authority does not have any power to do anything unless such powers are specifically enumerated in the Statute which creates it. The authority merely performs the statutory obligation - Here it does not appear that the authority acted in any manner contrary to law. Travelling without a proper e-way bill attracts penalty. The authority assessed the penalty amount and the petitioner deposited the same without a murmur. There is hardly any reason to interfere in the instant proceeding - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 129(3) of West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and appellate authority's affirmation. Analysis: The petitioner contested the penalty imposed for goods moving without a valid e-way bill, citing a breakdown causing e-way bill expiration near final destination. Allegations of mechanical imposition of penalty and lack of discretion exercised by the authority were raised, emphasizing the absence of deliberate tax evasion intent. The petitioner argued for setting aside penalties, relying on legal precedents like Assistant Commissioner vs. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited. The respondents countered, asserting due opportunity was provided, and penalties were rightfully imposed as the vehicle lacked valid papers. They highlighted the petitioner's failure to object initially and the formal nature of the appeal, questioning the belated objections raised before the High Court. The Court examined if the respondent authority acted lawfully under Section 129, detaining goods and imposing penalties. The petitioner's compliance with penalty payment without objection and lack of substantial defense during appeal were noted. Relying on legal precedents, the Court emphasized the statutory nature of penalty imposition for contraventions, irrespective of intent. The Court distinguished the present case from Satyam Shivam, emphasizing the absence of State responsibility for the delay in goods transportation. The petitioner's claim of practical difficulties in e-way bill revalidation was dismissed, emphasizing strict compliance with statutory provisions. The Court highlighted the purpose of opportunity of hearing and the minimal scope for discretion in e-way bill regulations. Legal judgments like Ashok Kumar Sureka and Ramji Jaiswal were referenced, emphasizing case-specific conclusions and absence of precedential value. The Court reiterated the irrelevance of intent in statutory penalty imposition, emphasizing the authority's obligation to enforce statutory provisions without discretion. Ultimately, the Court found no grounds to interfere, dismissing the writ petition without costs, citing the petitioner's compliance with penalty payment and lack of substantial defense.
|
