Delay of Few Hours of Expiry of Tenure of E-Way Bill was not to evade Tax: Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Order]

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the delay of a few hours of expiry of tenure of E- way bill was not to evade tax.

The petitioner M/s Daya Shanker Singh is a registered dealer holding Goods and Service Tax Identification No as 23BDRPS9015A1ZK.The petitioner received a quotation from Mittal Steels for the supply of TMT bars. In turn, the petitioner placed an order to Mittal Steels, Raipur for the supply of TMT bars.

Mittal Steels being the supplier of goods in compliance with Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services act R/W Rule 138-A generated an E-Way Bill for the movement of goods from Raipur to Dindori on 17.05.2022 at 06:08 PM. 

The vehicle reached Dindori on 19.5.2022 between 10.30 to 10.45 pm well within the time mentioned in the E-Way Bill. The Assistant Commissioner at 4.35 AM on 20.5.2022 stopped the vehicle and demanded the relevant documents and was satisfied with all the documents produced by the truck driver except the Eway Bill.

The Assistant Commissioner opined that E-way Bill got expired on 19.5.2022 at midnight. The repeated requests of the truck driver and transporter to the Assistant Commissioner that the goods reached Dindori before midnight and unintentional delay occurred thereafter went in vain. The Assistant Commissioner issued FORM GST MOV-02 stating that the E-way Bill got expired and detained the vehicle in the custody of the City Police Station, Dindori.

It was observed that the respondent failed to follow the principles of natural justice, which was part of the statutory requirement of Section 126 of the said Act which provides that no penalty should be imposed for ‘minor breaches’ or procedural requirements or omission etc. The petitioner was not found guilty of any fraudulent intent or gross negligence.

The respondents failed to see that there was no revenue loss. The delay of almost 4:30 hours before which E-way Bill stood expired appears to be bonafide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of the petitioner, the impugned notice/order could not have been passed.

Shri Justice Sujoy Paul & Shri Justice Prakash Chandra Gupta set aside the penalty imposed by the order dated 25/05/2022. While allowing the writ petition the amount of penalty already deposited by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded back to him within 30 days failing which it will carry 6% interest till the time of actual payment.

The petitioner was represented by Shri Abhishek Kumar Dhayani and the respondent was represented by Darshan Soni.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates