A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court ruled that an inconsistency in the number of goods provided in the e-way bill under GST will not draw section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. The applicant is involved in the business of the copper wires and copper scraps, who buys from dealers located across the country and he is enrolled beneath Delhi GST Act, 2017/Central GST Act, 2017.
The applicant claims that in the normal course of business, he sold the copper scraps to M/s R.N.T. Metals Pvt. Ltd., Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) for an amount of Rs.83,69,594/- (including IGST @ 18%). While the mentioned goods were in transit in vehicle No.HR-55S-1938, the same were blocked via respondent No.4 at Manesar on 27.11.2021. The goods were accompanied by valid Invoice No. RM/64/21-22 and e-way bill, as contemplated beneath the Act. upon asking of the council, the provided documents were made but the vehicle that carries the goods was given an order to be stationed and Form GST MOV-02 was given.
The council mentioned that on physical verification the difference was seen in the real quantity and the quantity shown in the invoice and e-way bill under GST. The real quantity was seen to be 90 kgs. 700 gms exceeding what has been found under the invoice. Hence, she avails that through revealing the lower quantity the applicant has an intention to evade the tax.
Justice Ajay Tewari and Justice Pankaj Jain ruled that considering the fair stand opted by the applicant and the fact that the mismatch would be termed as a breach of the provision of the act, “we deem it appropriate to allow the present writ petition. Proceedings against the petitioner under Section 129 of the Act are hereby quashed.”
Fine and penalty, when any imposed with respect to the applicant and deposited through him, be refunded to him in a duration of 15 days from the receipt date of the certified copy of the same order. Since the goods have been released already hence no more order is needed.
Squaring off the matter bench mentioned that after learning these situations, it would not be mentioned that the applicant has any intention to evade the tax or the mismatch in the quantities is of the same nature would entail the proceedings beneath section 129 of the act. An individual who has already furnished the tax of Rs .1276717.68/- on a consignment cannot be said to have an intent to evade tax amounting to Rs.11000. At this stage, Mr Goyal specified that the applicant is ready to furnish the tax as well as the penalty levied via state authorities which comes to be around Rs 22,000.
