Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update No 316 on expiry of E-way bill due to clerical error

GST Update No 316 on expiry of E-way bill due to clerical error
After implementation of GST regime, one of the common point for litigation is detention of goods due to expiry of e-way bill. It is often observed that the goods are being moved even after expiry of e-way bill due to procedural irregularities and inability to extend the said e-way bill. However, there is no malafide intention attributed on the part of the supplier of goods but departmental authorities exercise their power of detention of goods thereby levying heave penalties. The Courts are flooded with detention cases wherein they have stepped forward and delivered that the harsh penalties should not be levied merely because of technical errors in e-way bills. Recently, one such issue on similar subject matter was reported before Tripura High Court in the case of TIRTHAMOYEE ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS V/S STATE OF TRIPURA. The decision imparted in this case is subject matter of our present update.The petitioner is a proprietor and engaged in the business of manufacturing of alumininum utensils. Certain products were purchased from Hindalco Industries Ltd. which is a Government company and would be supplied to Kolkata to be transported to Agartala by road. Invoice was generated for transporting goods from Howrah to Agartala. Further, Test Certificate and Packing Slip of the goods under transportation were also generated regarding number of items, their weight, chemical composition etc. The petitioner submitted that due to clerical error the distance of place of origin to destination was shown as 470 Kms instead of 1470 kms and hence, the validity period of e-way bill was of 5 days. The goods were intercepted at Tripura border and a memo of detention of goods was also issued stating that the goods were transported without a valid E-way bill. A show cause notice dated 05.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner to pay GST along with penalty. On same day the impugned order was also passed confirming the
principal tax along with penalties. The petitioner submitted challenged the order and argued that expiry of e-way bill was due to clerical error which would not result into any tax liability.The counsel of revenue stated that transporter was carrying the goods without valid E-way bill. Further, the tax inspector was within his right to demand taxes and penalties.

The Court stated that defect of the goods in transporting without valid E-way bill was due to minor oversight and a clerical error. It is clearly a typographical error wherein distance is wrongly mentioned as 470 kms instead of 1470 kms. Therefore, it was stated that inspector had no power to demand GST along with penalty. Reference was further drawn to CBIC Circular dated 14.09.2018 wherein the manner to deal with clerical errors was mentioned. It was stated that as per Circular, proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 should not be initiated if there is an error of one or two digits in a document number mentioned in the E-way bill. In such a situation, at best, penalty of Rs.500 & 1000/- under State and Central GST may be collected under Section 125 of the Act. It was concluded that the present case is not a fit case where petitioner is relegated to file appeal more importantly when the order suffered from gross irregularity of no hearing been granted to the petitioner since the show cause notice and order was passed on the same day. This was wholly impermissible since it does not treat this order as a tentative demand but as a mandatory demand. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.The above decision is a landmark decision as it seeks to quash the detention orders where the e-way bill had expired due to genuine mistake occurred while mentioning the distance of travel. There had been various cases wherein it is ruled out that clerical mistakes should not lay a foundation for levying heavy penalties. Reference can be drawn to M/s Daya Shankar Singh and State of Madhya Pradesh, R.K. Motors V/s State Officers, M.R. Traders V/s Assistant Tax Officer etc. It is high time that judicial rulings like these should be followed by the revenue authorities unconditionally failing which the Courts will be flooded with petitioner similar to the one discussed in this update.
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com