Supreme Court - Vardhan Associates - Penalty Us 129 Upheld - Waybill Expired
Supreme Court - Vardhan Associates - Penalty Us 129 Upheld - Waybill Expired
Supreme Court - Vardhan Associates - Penalty Us 129 Upheld - Waybill Expired
VERSUS
ORDER
Leave granted.
3. The present appeal emanates from the final judgment and order passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the “High
Court”) in Writ Petition bearing W.P.A. No.17452 of 2019 dated 2nd August, 2022 (herein-
after referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”), by which the said petition was dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2024.01.02
18:59:20 IST
Reason:
2
BRIEF FACTS:
drilling using trenchless methodology for underground utilities - oil/gas, telecom and
power. The appellant functions as a contractor and is duly registered under the Central
Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “CGST Act”) and the West
Bengal Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “WBGST Act”). For
many years, the appellant executed work contracts of the Gas Authority of India Limited
(hereinafter referred to as “GAIL”), including work in the State of West Bengal for Dobhi-
Durgapur Gas Pipeline Section. Prior to this, the appellant had executed work for GAIL in
2019, the appellant availed of the services of M/s. Hariom Freight Carriers (hereinafter
referred to as “HFC”) for mobilising one machine being XCMG HDD Machine
from its previous/old work site at Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh to the new site at Durgapur,
West Bengal. The said machine which is used for execution of works contracts by the
appellant, who is its sole owner, is ‘capital goods’ as per Section 2(19)1, CGST Act. The
appellant complied with the provisions of the CGST Act relating to movement of capital
goods, before initiating the movement from Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh to Durgapur, West
paying the requisite tax amount required under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax
6. The validity of the said E-way bill was till 9 th June, 2019. As transportation was
not done within the validity period of the E-way bill, finally the consignment was
intercepted on 17th June, 2019 and upon inspection, an order of detention was issued by
the respondent No.1, at the time of entering the State of West Bengal, under Section
129(1), CGST Act and Section 129(1), WBGST Act read with Section 20, IGST Act under
Form GST MOV-06 No.703 dated 18th June, 2019. Pursuant thereto, the consignment
as well as the vehicle carrying the same were detained by the respondent No.1.
7. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 issued a notice under Section 129(3), CGST
Act and Section 129(3), WBGST Act read with Section 20, IGST Act, being Form GST
MOV-07 No.712 dated 19th June, 2019, asking the appellant to show-cause, within seven
days from the date of the receipt of the notice, as to why the proposed tax of
₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs) and penalty of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four
lakhs) be not imposed, indicating that failure would lead to initiation of further
proceedings under the provisions of the CGST, WBGST or IGST Acts. On 24 th June,
2019, the appellant filed its reply. However, upon consideration of the reply filed by the
appellant, on 27th June, 2019, an order of demand of tax and penalty under Form GST
MOV-09 vide Order No.803 was passed by the respondent No.1 and the proposed tax
and penalty in terms of the notice dated 19 th June, 2019, was confirmed.
4
against the same on 19 th July, 2019 before the Appellate Authority, after depositing 10%
of the tax demand, i.e., ₹5,40,000/- (Rupees Five lakh forty thousand) in terms of
Section 107(6), IGST Act. On 2 nd July, 2019, Form GST DRC-07 with Reference
Fifty four lakhs) and a penalty of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs) totalling to
₹1,08,00,000/- (Rupees One crore and eight lakhs) was imposed. On 31 st July, 2019, the
appellant communicated to the respondent No.1 that it had filed an appeal before the
Appellate Authority after having deposited 10% of the tax demand and that a bank
guarantee had been arranged in favour of the respondent No.1 being the amount of
demand, as per the order dated 27 th June, 2019. A copy of the said bank guarantee was
submitted before the respondent No.1 with a request to give formal permission of release
of goods on execution of bond in Form GST MOV-08 and submission of bank guarantee.
It was further assured by the appellant to the respondent No.1 that the bond under Form
GST MOV-08 as well as bank guarantee would be executed immediately after receiving
permission from the respondent No.1. However, the appeal was not decided and thus,
the appellant filed a writ petition 2 before the High Court at Calcutta against the order
dated 2nd July, 2019. This writ petition was disposed of by the High Court by order dated
21st August, 2019, directing the Senior Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Central Section,
who was the Appellate Authority, to decide the appeal of the appellant at the earliest and
2
Writ Petition No.15959(W) of 2019
5
preferably by 28th August, 2019. The appellant also filed a writ petition 3, inter alia, praying
for consideration of the applications dated 31 st July, 2019 and 2nd August, 2019, for
submission of full amount through bank guarantee and provisional release of the
consignment in terms of Section 129(1)(c), WBGST Act and not to give effect to the
demand order dated 27th June, 2019. Further, as an interim measure, it was prayed that
the respondents be directed not to give effect and/or further effect to the order dated 27 th
June, 2019.
9. On 18th September, 2019, the High Court, inter alia, directed that the goods may
be released subject to payment of the entire amount of the Goods and Service Tax
(hereinafter referred to as “GST”) of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs) in cash to the
Authority, out of which, ₹5,40,000/-(Rupees Five lakhs and forty thousand) had already
been paid with the further direction that the appellant shall also pay 50% of the penalty of
₹54,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty four lakhs), i.e., ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs)
in cash and the remaining 50%, i.e., ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs) by way
of bank guarantee which should be valid for a year and be renewed every year till the
disposal of the writ petition. Thereafter, the impugned judgment was passed which is
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though there may have been
some fault on the part of the appellant with regard to the E-way bill not being valid on the
3
Writ Petition No.17452(W) of 2019
6
day when the actual transportation of the consignment took place but the same was due
to the fact that HFC could not make available any vehicle for transportation in Auraiya,
Uttar Pradesh which fact was never intimated/conveyed to the appellant, and this was
the reason as to why fresh E-way bill for interstate transfer of the said consignment could
not be generated by the appellant. It was further submitted that even after depositing
10% of the tax amount, which was required for filing an appeal and the appellant being
ready to pay the remaining amount of the tax and to give a bank guarantee for the
penalty, the respondents had denied release of the consignment which was arbitrary.
11. It was next submitted that the consignment has remained uncared till now and
must have been damaged. Ultimately, the consignment was the property of the
appellant, who was merely transporting the same from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal
and thus, there should not be any GST imposed and in this regard, actually an E-way bill
was generated, but unfortunately, validity of such transportation had elapsed due to
factors, which the appellant was unaware of and were beyond its control. Thus, it was
submitted that in such a background, the appellant should not be saddled with huge
proportionate. The movement of the consignment was in the nature of an “inter unit
transfer” of capital goods from one place to another and not a result of any transaction of
sale/purchase of goods between two parties, making it liable for taxation under the GST
regime.
7
12. Finally, learned counsel submitted that as notice had been issued on the limited
point of quantum of penalty, this Court may consider the circumstances under which the
entire episode happened and protect the appellant as imposition of such heavy
amount(s) would lead to serious financial hardship and cripple the appellant from
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that appellant has
not made out any case for interference since the admitted position is that on the day
when the consignment was intercepted in the course of inter-state movement, there was
no live/valid E-way bill which exempted payment of the GST and in the absence of the
same, imposition of GST and the attendant penalty is justified both, in law as well as on
facts. It was submitted that the Authority which has passed the underlying impugned
order, exercising the power under the relevant Acts had no option but to pass such an
order in view of the admitted factual position and as such, no infirmity or fault can be
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the Court would also consider the facts
that in such a matter where the Consignment was to be shifted from Auraiya, State of
Uttar Pradesh to Durgapur, State of West Bengal and the validity period of the generated
E-way bill was from 30 th May, 2019 till 9th June, 2019, i.e., more than ten days whereas,
the consignment ultimately crossed the state borders only on 17 th June, 2019, i.e., after a
8
delay of over one week from the date of expiry of the E-way bill. The appellant cannot
consignment being transported, if at all it was for the purpose of doing work by the
appellant itself at a different place and by way of “inter unit transfer of capital goods from
one place to another”. It was contended that even HFC to which, as per the appellant,
the work of transportation of the consignment was entrusted, was fully aware of the
period of expiry/validity of the E-way bill. If there was a genuine difficulty of not having
an available transportation vehicle at the relevant time, the appellant could not/would not
have agreed to transport the same within the time-period of the E-way bill. But from the
conduct of both, HFC and the appellant, it does not appear that such a plea was
bonafide or genuine.
15. Learned counsel summed up, submitting that in any view of the matter, the
appellant as well as HFC being in the business of such transactions, cannot plead
ignorance of law. It was advanced that the mere fact that an E-way bill had been
generated, and was used mistakenly beyond the validity period, cannot be accepted,
much less in taxation matters where the time-period fixed for certain acts by the person,
is required to comply with the same is strict, without any discretion either to the person
concerned or to the authorities to relax the timelines. The only way going forward was to
16. On the point of quantum of penalty limited to which notice was issued, it was
submitted that from the sequence of facts, it is obvious that the conduct of the appellant
does not entitle it to any leniency, especially in tax matters, where the parties have to be
very serious as government revenue is involved; which in turn has an effect on the very
DIRECTIONS:
17. Having considered the matter, the Court wishes to confine its consideration only
to the quantum of penalty, as was made clear vide order dated 8 th December, 2022. It is
not in doubt that stricto sensu, the appellant cannot shirk from its responsibility of
complying with the requirement in law to generate a fresh E-way bill, if for any reason the
consignment had not been transported. However, viewing the factual scenario, which is
not disputed, i.e., the appellant is the owner of the consignment and was using it in
connection with its contractual obligations in Uttar Pradesh and then having a similar
contract in West Bengal and no evidence has been placed on record that shows that the
consignment was to be sold/used for any other purpose in respect of any other party, this
18. The appellant has been saddled with the tax amount of ₹54,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifty four lakhs). The law also provides for imposition of penalty. Ordinarily, we may have
refrained from interfering, but because there was an E-way bill that was generated and in
10
view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are inclined to vary the orders passed by
19. In our opinion, ends of justice would be served if the penalty amount is reduced
to 50% of the penalty imposed, i.e., ₹27,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs).
Therefore, ₹54,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty four lakhs) being the tax imposed, is upheld and
₹81,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty one lakhs), which shall be paid by the appellant. The said
amount, subject to payment(s) already made, shall be deposited with the concerned
Authority on or before 29th February, 2024. Upon the same being done, the
transportation vehicle as also the consignment shall be released to their rightful owners
20. The appeal stands disposed of in the afore-elucidated terms. It is made clear
that this order has been passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and shall
................................................J.
[HIMA KOHLI]
...................................................J.
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
NEW DELHI.
OCTOBER 31, 2023.