[dated 07.11.2024, in OSEL Devices Ltd. vs. Assistant Enforcement Officer, from WP(C) No. 33720 of 2024] Goods were intercepted while in transit for the sole defect that e-invoice was not generated. Therefore, penalty was imposed under Section 129 of the CGST/SGST Act. The Hon’ble Court held the aforesaid discrepancy to be minor in nature. It […]
[dated 12.08.2024, in Aatral Associates v. State Tax Officer, from W.P. no. 21544 of 2024] Demand was confirmed against the petitioner for both tax and penalty. Petitioner accepted and paid the tax portion. However, he filed an appeal against the penalty. Appellate authority rejected the appeal, citing that penalty alone cannot be challenged when tax demand […]
U/s.35(6), if the registered person fails to account for the goods / services, the proper officer shall determine the tax payable, as if such goods / services were supplied and ss.73/74 shall apply for determination of tax. On the other hand, s.130 provides for confiscation and penalty u/s.122 where any person does not account for any goods on which he is liable to pay tax. Nevertheless, after issuing a notice u/s.130, tax and penalty cannot be determined u/ss.73/74 whatsoever.
Power to arrest, prior to conviction, is specified under Section 69 and can be exercised only by the Commissioner if he has reasons to believe that any of the specified offences were committed.
Section 129 does not require existence of mens rea to impose penalty. This has been watered-down, to an extent, with the issue of Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018, which specifies minimum penalty for minor offences. Yet, roving squad officers have been imposing maximum penalty for any violation under Section 129. Therefore, the judiciary has come to the rescue of innocent taxpayers from the clutches of Section 129.
Penalty cannot be imposed under Section 129 of CGST Act if there is no intention to evade tax.
Appellant cannot shirk responsibility of generating fresh E Way Bill if consignment is delayed. But, the Supreme Court held that the order under Article 142 shall not be treated as precedent.