Kartar Singh vs. Commissioner Uttarakhand State G S T Comiionerate Dehradun

Held

The Court held that while carrying an e-way bill is a requirement under the Rules, which has the sanction of the Act, it cannot be said that the duty to generate it lies solely with the owner of the goods. If the owner does not generate it, the transporter is obligated to do so. The Court found that the petitioner was not carrying an e-way bill, and his statement regarding the loading location was inconsistent with the invoice and the vehicle's actual route. The Court noted that the consignor firm had a history of similar violations and its GST registration was cancelled. The Court concluded that the cumulative factors, including the transportation without an e-way bill, the dubious nature of the consignor, the vehicle's deviation from its route, and the petitioner's inconsistent statements, clearly indicated an intention to evade tax. Therefore, the action under Section 130 of the Act was justified, and the impugned order did not warrant interference. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Kartar Singh, owner of vehicle bearing registration No. UK06CA8300, challenges an order dated 07.02.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad Unit, Kashipur, under Section 130 of the GST Act. The vehicle was intercepted on 15.01.2023 while transporting goods from Ballabhgarh, Punjab to Lakheempur, U.P. for M/s Om International Company. The petitioner, who was also the driver, did not possess an e-way bill. The mobile squad found no discrepancy in the goods or vehicle. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for potential confiscation of the vehicle and imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,98,000/- for alleged intent to evade tax. The petitioner contended he was merely a transporter and not in connivance with the owner of the goods, arguing that e-way bill generation is the responsibility of the registered person, not the transporter. The respondents argued the petitioner was not carrying an e-way bill, the supplier was a dubious firm with a cancelled GST registration, the vehicle was not on its declared route, and the petitioner gave a wrong statement about the loading location.

Key Issues

1. Whether the imposition of penalty and confiscation under Section 130 of the Central/Uttarakhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is justified when the petitioner, a transporter, was not carrying an e-way bill, turning on Section 130 and Rule 138A. Petitioner's arguments: (i) The Act does not mandate e-way bills; it's a rule under Rule 138A. (ii) Contravention of rules under Section 164(4) is punishable with a penalty not exceeding Rs. 10,000, or as per Section 122(1)(xiv). (iii) It is not a case of tax evasion. (iv) Merely not carrying an e-way bill does not make a vehicle liable for confiscation. (v) Section 130 requires proof of intent to evade tax, which is absent here. Respondents' arguments: (i) The petitioner was not carrying an e-way bill as required. (ii) There were discrepancies in the goods and bill. (iii) The supplier firm, M/s Om International Company, is dubious, its GST registration is cancelled, and it was previously involved in similar violations. (iv) The vehicle was operating on a different route than stated. (v) The petitioner's statement regarding the loading location differed from the invoice. (vi) The owner of the goods admitted to transporting without an e-way bill, indicating connivance. (vii) The petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107.