TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authority shall be at liberty to verify that fact to ascertain whether tax has been paid or not. In the event of non- payment of tax the appropriate action be taken for realizing the said tax from the petitioner. But in the circumstances, we set aside the order of penalty and direct the petitioner to pay the sum of ₹ 10,000/- as penalty for the breach which is covered under Section 122(xiv) of the CGST Act within a period of 1 month from today. If not paid, the action as prescribed by the statue be followed for realizing the same. Petition stands partly allowed. - WP(C)317 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY For the Applicant : Mr. B.N.Majumder, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. K.Dey, Addl. GA. JUDGMENT [1] Heard Mr.B.N.Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.Dey, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents. [2] By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order No.2 dated 27.05.2020 [Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition] passed by the Superintendent of State Tax, Churaibari Enforcement Wing, North Tripura. By the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4] Finally, on consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner on 26.05.2020 [Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition], the said order of tax and penalty, as challenged in this writ petition, was passed. In the reply, the petitioner has stated that the vehicle carrying the goods under e-way bill had broken down. During trans-shipment, the e-way bill could not be amended due to COVID 19 situation and the consequential countrywide lock-down declared by the Government of India. It has been further asserted that the same transporter had been carrying the goods. At the behest of the petitioner, he had shifted the goods in another vehicle but was unable to amend the e-way bill through the designated portal. But the goods in transit were matching with the following facts: (a)invoice number and date (b)the goods as per invoice and as per e-way bill dated 21.2.2020 (c)details of Consignee and Consigner. [5] It may be noted that the e-way bill dated 17.5.2020 the details of the consignment has been provided and the same details are available with the last e-way bill generated after the expiry of e-way bill dated 18.03.2020, though in the reply it has been stated as 21.02.2020 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rules made thereunder; (x) falsifies or substitutes financial records or produces fake accounts or documents or furnishes any false information or return with an intention to evade payment of tax due under this Act; (xi) is liable to be registered under this Act but fails to obtain registration; (xii) furnishes any false information with regard to registration particulars, either at the time of applying for registration, or subsequently; (xiii) obstructs or prevents any officer in discharge of his duties under this Act; (xiv) transports any taxable goods without the cover of documents as may be specified in this behalf; (xv) suppresses his turnover leading to evasion of tax under this Act; (xvi) fails to keep, maintain or retain books of account and other documents in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder; (xvii) fails to furnish information or documents called for by an officer in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder or furnishes false information or documents during any proceedings under this Act; (xviii) supplies, transports or stores any goods which he has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under obligation to furnish monthly return and in due obedience, the petitioner has submitted return in the month of March, against the Invoice No.SGIPL/19-20/161 and had already paid due Taxes on 24.06.2020 again the Total value of the goods of as many as 8 consignments and payments are made quarterly. Be it also mentioned here that the petitioner is paying IGST @18%, which is double of the rate of CGST and SGST which is 9%, only, under both the Acts. [7] Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has contended that there is no fraudulent intention or malafide act indulged by the petitioner. It was a lapse under very abnormal circumstances of lockdown and that aspect of the matter has not been considered at all. Moreover, Mr. Majumder has submitted that while imposing the penalty the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his authority as provided under Section 126 of the CGST Act and as reproduced above. According to Mr. Majumder, learned counsel, even the general principles in imposing the penalty (see Section 126 of the CGST Act) has not been taken serious care of, in as much as Section 126 of the CGST Act parts on a direction on the officers who are authorized to impose tax. On c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
