TIRTHAMOYEE ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA
LAWS(TRIP)-2021-3-19
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on March 09,2021

Tirthamoyee Aluminium Products Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Akil Kureshi, J. - (1.) Petitioner has challenged an order dated 5th November, 2018 passed by the Inspector of State Tax demanding Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST, for short) of Rs.1,48,425/- each and a similar sum under State Goods and Service Tax (SGST, for short) with penalties of Rs.4,12,291/- under CGST and SGST Act, 2017.
(2.) Brief facts are as under: Petitioner is a proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminium utensils and its unit is located at Agartala. The petitioner purchased certain aluminium products from Hindalco Industries Ltd. which is a Government of India company for a sum of Rs.19,46,014/- and would be supplied from Kolkata to be transported to Agartala by road. Invoice was generated by the Hindalco on 25.10.2018 which showed that the goods would be transported from Howrah west, Kolkata and would be delivered at the petitioner's unit at A.D Nagar Industrial Estate, Agartala. Hindalco also issued a Test Certificate and Packing Slip of the goods under transportation which gave full breakup of the number of items, their weight, chemical compositions as also the number of the truck in which the goods would be transported. In terms of the provisions of the GST Act and Rules thereunder, the consignor also generated the E-way bill from the official portal of the State agencies on 25.10.2018. According to the petitioner, due to a clerical error the distance from the place of origin to the ultimate destination i.e. from Howrah to Agartala, was shown as 470 Kms. instead of actual distance which was 1470 Kms. The petitioner would point out that as per sub-rule (10) of Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, a transporter would have time of one day to transport the goods for every 100 Kms. of distance require to be travelled. The system thus automatically generated the validity period of five days for the E-way bill since the distance, as noted earlier, was erroneously shown as 470 Kms. instead of 1470 Kms.
(3.) The goods arrived at Tripura border at Churaibari Check Post on 05.11.2018. The inspecting agency intercepted the goods and issued a memo of detention on the ground that the transporter had not produced valid E-way bill. On 5.11.2018 itself, a show cause notice was issued by the Inspector of State Taxes calling upon the petitioner to pay total GST of Rs.2,96,850/- and penalty of Rs.8,24,582/- under sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. He required the petitioner to appear before him on 19.11.2018 at 10.45 a.m. Strangely, having issued notice to the petitioner to appear on 19.11.2018, the Inspector of State Tax passed the impugned order on 05.11.2018 itself and confirmed the principal tax demand with penalties as noted. This order, the petitioner has challenged on the ground that validity of the E-way bill had expired on account of a clerical error which would not result into any tax liability. The penalty obviously was wrongly demanded.;


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