2026-VIL-201-GSTAT-RPR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Section 129(1)(a) of CGST Act - Whether proof of intent to evade tax is required for penalty - Vehicles carrying goods under e-way bills were intercepted by the State Tax Officer after the e-way bills had expired, and penalty equal to twice the tax was imposed and paid for release - Appellant contended that penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of any finding of evasion of tax - Whether facts, circumstances or material showing intent to evade tax must be on record for invoking Section 129(1)(a) and imposing penalty - HELD - A taxing statute is to be strictly construed, and its intention must be gathered from the words used. Section 129(1) does not mention intent to evade tax as mandatory, unlike Section 130(1). Mens rea is not essential for imposing penalty for breach of civil obligations. Following the Calcutta High Court in Asian Switchgear, intent to evade tax is not necessary for imposing penalty under this section, as it is a civil liability - Proof of or facts, circumstances or material showing intent to evade tax are not required for invoking Section 129(1) or imposing penalty - The question of law is decided in favour of the Respondent-Deptrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Transportation of goods on expired e-way bills - Interstate stock transfer - Rule 138(10) - Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST - E-way bills were valid up to a date, and the vehicles were intercepted six days after their expiry, about a short distance from the destination - Appellant claimed that the vehicles had broken down and that the movement was a stock transfer between its own units - Whether the penalty under Section 129(1)(a) is sustainable - HELD - The validity of an e-way bill may be extended within eight hours from the time of its expiry. The Appellant produced no repair bills or other evidence of the alleged breakdown, though the vehicles belonged to its own unit. Neither the supplier, the recipient nor the transporter attempted to amend or extend the e-way bills in the six days, and the driver's lack of knowledge was no answer as the amendment could be made by those persons. The vehicles were intercepted only a short distance from the destination, which was a matter of hours. Stock transfer between distinct registrations gives no blanket permission for non-amendment of e-way bills. The Circular does not provide that no proceeding under Section 129 be initiated where an e-way bill has expired, because its exceptions apply where a valid e-way bill accompanies the goods. An adverse inference was drawn against the Appellant for not producing evidence which could have been produced - No satisfactory explanation for non-validation of the e-way bills within the prescribed period was found, and the penalty is sustained.rnrn rnrnIssue 3: Section 129(3) and (4) - Alleged non-compliance with notice, hearing and Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST - Appellant contended that MOV-01 and the order were passed on the same date, that no notice under Section 129(3) was given, that no opportunity of hearing under Section 129(4) was provided, and that copies of the forms were not supplied - Whether the alleged procedural lapses vitiate the penalty - HELD - The Appellant had full opportunity before the Tribunal to produce its explanation and documentary evidence for non-amending of the e-way bills. The Tribunal, being the final fact-finding authority, can consider the explanation. The Appellant offered no satisfactory explanation, and the procedural grounds therefore did not assist it - Both the appeals are rejected.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page