GST update No 204 on no requirement of second E-Way Bill when first was valid

The rationale behind introduction of concept of E-way bill was to develop a mechanism to keep a track record of goods which are being transported and consequently, reducing the chances of tax evasion. Since inception, there had been many bumps and debates on the said subject matter. The revenue authorities often point out illogical discrepancies which results into unnecessary litigations and knocking of the doors of the courts. One such issue on the same subject matter came before Calcutta High Court in the case of ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER V/S ASHOK KUMAR SUREKA wherein the goods were detained on the ground of requirement of second e-way bill. The decision imparted in this case is the subject matter of present update.

In the present case, single member bench of the same Court held that the detention of goods along with demand and penalty charged thereof is not justified. The goods were detained on the grounds that the e-way bill carrying the goods expired on the midnight of 8^th September and goods were transported on 9^th September and vehicle was intercepted at 1:30 p.m. It was stated that the vehicle transporting the goods broke down which therefore, resulted into delay and further, there was no wilful intention to evade payment of tax. Therefore, the Single Member Bench disposed of the appeal on account of no malafide intention and therefore, aggrieved by the decision, the department filed further appeal before this Court.

The Counsel of the respondent submitted that the tax invoice was issued by M/s Bhaskar Steel and Ferro Alloy Private Limited dated 07.09.2019 and e-way bill dated 07.09.2019 mentioning the details of dispatch from SRMB Srijan Private Limited to Shubham Steels, the registered office of Writ Petitioner in Kolkata. The tax invoice was raised in favour of Om Dayal Educational and Research Society, having its office in Kolkata but goods were to be delivered at Delhi Public School, Durgapur. Therefore, a second e-way bill was generated dated 07.09.2019 since the distance between SRMB Srijan and place of delivery was 9 Kms and the e-way bill was valid upto 08.09.2019 mid-night.

The Court held that bona fides of the petitioner is to be tested on the basis of documents available on the record. It was held that considering the above stated facts of the case, the first e-way bill was valid upto 09.09.2019. Therefore, in absence of second e-way bill as well, the tax authorities could not intercept or detain the vehicle. Therefore, the submissions of respondent are accepted and it is not a case of wilful attempt to evade payment of tax. Hence, the order of single member judge was upheld.

The above decision is another ruling in the same vein. Time and again the there had been various judicial pronouncements wherein the revenue authorities are proven wrong by the Court for raising illogical allegations thereby resulting in wasting the precious time of the Court. The need of the hour is that the revenue authorities should adhere to judicial precedents so that unwarranted litigation is avoided.

Comments

GST update No 204 on no requirement of second E-Way Bill when first was valid

Post a Comment

Query