50% penalty levied for E-Way Bill violation without intent to evade taxes: SC

The carrier could not make any vehicle available for transportation from the origin. This was not communicated to the appellant. Consequently, a fresh E-Way Bill was not generated.

Also, the movement was in the nature of inter-unit transfer of capital goods from one state to another, which is not a transaction of sale / purchase. Therefore, the prayer was to not impose tax and equal (100%) penalty.

The appellant cannot plead ignorance especially if such movement was in the inter-unit transfer.

Further, in taxation, time-bound compliances (where there is no discretion to relax the timeline by either the party or authorities concerned) should be strictly adhered.

The Supreme Court observed^[1] that the appellant cannot shirk from the responsibility of generating a fresh E Way Bill if the consignment was not transported. Hence, the tax demand was upheld.

However, since there appears to be no intent to evade tax, penalty was quantified as 50% of the tax demand.

Importantly, the order was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and shall not be treated as a precedent.

[1] Order dated October 31, 2023 arising from Civil Appeal No.8302 of 2023