SRI GOPIKRISHNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-1-17
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on January 07,2021

Sri Gopikrishna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Talapatra, J. - (1.) Heard Mr.B.N.Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K.Dey, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondents.
(2.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order No.2 dated 27.05.2020 Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition passed by the Superintendent of State Tax, Churaibari Enforcement Wing, North Tripura. By the said order, the liability of the petitioner of paying the CGST and SGST has been determined @Rs.3,56,990/-. Moreover, since the petitioner could not produce the valid e-way bill against the vehicle by which the consignment relating to invoice No SGIEL/19- 20/161, an aggregate penalty of Rs.3,56,990/-, equivalent to the tax payable, was imposed. Before imposing such tax, the taxing authority issued notice to the petitioner under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, Section 68(3) of the UTGST Act, 2017 and Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2019 asking why a proceeding under the provisions of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, State/ Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Goods and Services Tax (Compensation to States) Act, 2017 shall not be initiated. The notice is quite in detail. Except the part of not-tendering the e-way bill for the goods in movement, no controversy has been raised in respect of the other descriptions including the invoice no, rate of tax under Central GST Act or State GST Act. The petitioner by filing the reply on 21.05.2020 has stated that for two vehicles used consecutively, the valid e-way bills were generated, but due to sudden lock down the consignment could not be brought into the State of Tripura within the time. Even they could not generate a new e-bill against a new vehicle where as the petitioner was compelled to cause trans-shipment as the earlier vehicle got completely broken down while stranded for the nationwide lock-down. The petitioner has also stated that they made an attempt to have the amended e-way bill, but as the system was not approached within the valid time i.e. within 24 hrs of the expiry date, the system refused to generate a fresh e-way bill at their instance. As a result, when the vehicle was detained in the Churaibari check post, the vehicle was not carrying the valid e-way bill.
(3.) Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has fairly stated that only violation that has been noticed by the taxing authority is of not carrying the valid e-way bill against the said invoice. Even in the detention order dated 18.05.2020, as examined by us, the only ground of detention, as shown, is that no e-way bill was tendered for the goods in movement. That is the only solitary ground in the notice, as issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act etc.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.