Penalty can’t be imposed on goods in transit with valid tax invoice and e-way bill, even after suspension of GST registration: Allahabad High Court

Educator

New member


Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition challenging a demand and penalty order, the division bench of Arun Bhansali, CJ. and Vikas Budhwar, J., set aside the impugned order passed under Section of the (‘CGST Act’) , asthe documents accompanied by the goods were proper and the penalty was solely imposed on the ground of cancellation of GST registration of the appellant.

On 04-10-2024, the authorities intercepted the appellant firm’s vehicle when it was on its way from Patna to Gurugram. Upon inspection, the goods were allegedly not accompanied by the proper documents and subsequently, the goods were detained and a notice was issued , indicating that the registration of the appellant was suspended on the ground that it was based on fake documents. The appellant was proceeded against under Section of the read with Section of the and vide the impugned order a demand under Section of the of Rs.14,81,490/- was made.

Perusing the documents on record, the Court held that the documents in question which were accompanied by the goods, were dated 01-10-2024 and contained the requisites. The Court noted that the notice issued by the authorities indicated that the registration was suspended by the jurisdictional authorities at Bihar on 03-10-2024, based on which, the penalty was imposed under provisions of Section of the .

Drawing similarities with the case of Halder Enterprises v. State of U.P. , the Court held that it is not the case of the respondents that the goods were not accompanied by proper tax invoice and E-way bill. It is solely on the ground of suspended registration that the action was initiated, and the impugned order was passed.

Allowing the writ petition, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the authorities to carry out the exercise in terms of Section of the within two weeks from the date of this order

,

[Lakhdatar Traders v. State of UP, 2024: AHC:176212-DB, decided on 11-11-2024]



Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant: Aditya Pandey

For the Respondent: Ankur Agarwal, S.C.


Writ Tax No.1297 of 2023

The post appeared first on .
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock