GST Rulings

Penalty quantum for E-Way Bill violation

Applicability of Section 129

Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with detention and seizure of goods and conveyance in transit. It is applicable if the following activities are performed in contravention of the Act or the rules made thereunder:

  1. transportation of goods; or
  2. storage of goods while in transit.

Quantum of Penalty

With effect from 01.01.2022, penalty under Section 129 ibid is as follows:

  • where the owner of the goods agrees to pays the penalty:
    • 200% of tax payable on such goods;
    • 2% of value of such goods (or) ₹ 50,000, whichever is less (in case of exempt goods).
  • where the owner of the goods does not agree to pays the penalty:
    • 50% of value of such goods (or) 200% of tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher;
    • 5% of value of such goods (or) ₹ 50,000, whichever is less (in case of exempt goods).

Mens rea - Required or not?

It is important to note that Section 129 ibid does not impose the existence of mens rea, viz., intent to evade tax, as a condition 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 the maximum penalty for any violation under Section 129 ibid. Therefore, the judiciary has come to the rescue of innocent taxpayers from the clutches of Section 129 ibid.

Does non-updation of replacement vehicle no. in EWB warrant maximum penalty?

[Order of the High Court of Gujarat dated June 14, 2024 from R/Special Civil Application No. 1487 of 2020 in Landmark Cars Private Limited v. Union of India]

The petitioner had moved goods under the cover of an E-Way Bill (EWB). The conveyance broke down and a replacement conveyance was arranged. However, Part-B of the E-Way Bill was not updated. The goods were consequently detained and maximum penalty was imposed.

It was held that the discrepancy was minor as per Circular No.64 specified above since there was no intent to evade taxes.

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

P&H HC issues detailed guidelines on ITC denial for supplier’s non-payment

Background According to Section 16(2)(c) of the CGST Act, if tax charged in respect of…

3 weeks ago

Can consequential refund, arising from OIA, be rejected by OIO?

Background Order-in-Original (OIO, which partly rejected refund) was set aside by Order-in-Appeal (OIA). Fresh refund…

1 month ago

Inviolable principles governing Section 74 proceedings

"But for the audit undertaken by the Department, the suppression of facts would have gone…

1 month ago

Non-response to SCN & DRC01A construed as suppression: Madras HC

Background Intimation in DRC-01A and Show Cause Notice (SCN) were issued. The Petitioner failed to…

3 months ago

HC quashes GST notice & order for non-quantification of interest in notice

Issue The show cause notice issued to the Petitioner did not quantify the proposed demand…

6 months ago

Is limitation period of 2 years applicable to duplicate payments under GST law?

Issue The petitioner in the citation referred first infra, by mistake, made a duplicate payment…

7 months ago