2022-TIOL-1275-HC-KOL-GST
Mriganka Sarkar Vs UoI
GST - Petitioner's prayer for refund of tax paid for the second time and penalty amount has been rejected by the lower authorities, hence the petition - Petitioner's vehicle was intercepted and penalty was imposed on account of transporting timber without valid e-way bill - Goods were confiscated and the petitioner had to pay penalty as well as taxes for purpose of release of the goods - A further e-way bill was generated and the same goods were transported to Raiganj - Petitioner prays for refund of the amount paid on account of taxes for the second time and the penalty amount on the ground that respondents cannot impose double taxation in respect of the self-same goods.
Held: As there was discrepancy in the document from where the goods were dispatched, the authorities intercepted and confiscated the same - The petitioner was directed to pay the tax as well as penalty - Thereafter, it appears that a fresh e-Way Bill was generated immediately after interception - The description of the goods in the second e-Way Bill remains the same - It is only that the place of dispatch was rectified - The petitioner had to pay tax for the second time and penalty for not carrying the proper e-Way Bill at the very first instance - From the conduct of the petitioner, it does not appear that there was an intention to evade tax - The respondent authorities ought not to collect tax for second time in respect of the self-same goods that were transported by the petitioner - Law doesn't require payment of tax to be made more than once in respect of the self-same goods - The petitioner is entitled to the refund as prayed for - Orders of lower authorities are set aside and the Directorate of Commercial Taxes is directed to refund the amount collected on account of tax for the second time and the penalty paid by him within a period of four months - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 10, 11, 13, 15]
- Petition disposed of: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1274-HC-TRIPURA-GST
Satguru Impex Vs State of Tripura
GST - Vehicle containing 130 drums of bitumen seized on account of vehicle not having an appropriate e-way bill - Petitioner submits that the tax invoice and E-way bill erroneously mixed up the name of the seller and the buyer - Further submitted that after the petitioner learnt of the apparent mistake in the original e-way bill, the said mistake was duly corrected and a fresh e-way bill was generated on 08.05.2022 but even then the vehicle was not permitted to proceed and remains stranded at the Churaibari check post and a SCN dt. 08.05.2022 came to be issued - Petitioner challenges the said SCN and seeks release of the vehicle along with the goods consigned therein.
Held: While there appears to be an apparent mistake in the original e-way bill i.e. the name of the seller and the buyer had been erroneously swapped, therefore, Revenue was justified in not allowing the vehicle to enter into the State and seize the same, yet Bench finds that once the corrected e-way bill was produced, there was no justification to either initiate the present proceedings or continue with the seizure of the vehicle along with the goods - R ole of the State Revenue authorities is highly essential and imperative for the economic growth of the State - In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the parties are genuine, nor is there any dispute that the original E-way bill contained an error - However, where the error is rectified and a corrected E-way bill is produced, it would be appropriate for the Revenue authorities to act sensibly in the manner and proceed - Causing unnecessary impediment to the free flow of goods and vehicles does cause an unnecessary hindrance to the economy of the State - Wherever cases are found where people are using fake E-way bills and/or trying to evade tax, adequate power is vested in the Revenue to take suitable action in such matters - But in the present case, the said situation does not arise - Bench hopes and trusts that the officers working for the Revenue authority take up such matters with due seriousness that it deserves - SCN dated 08.05.2022 is quashed and the authorities are directed to release the vehicle and goods forthwith: High Court [para 6, 7, 9]
- Petition allowed: TRIPURA HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1273-HC-ORISSA-GST
Mahendra Oram Vs State of Odisha
GST - The question whether any amount is owed to the Petitioner by the Opposite Parties on account of GST deducted from its bills or vice versa, has become a highly disputed question of fact - The claim of the Petitioner ultimately, in simple terms, is one for money which it seeks as reimbursement from the Opposite Parties - It is not possible for this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to calculate on a case to case basis which component of the work executed by the Petitioner is entitled for reimbursement on account of GST and which is not - This being a disputed question of fact, the Court declines to undertake this exercise in the writ jurisdiction and leaves it to the Petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies available to him in accordance with law - In such proceedings, it would be open to either of the parties to rely on the pleadings of the present petition - Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed: High Court [para 7, 8]
- Petition dismissed: ORISSA HIGH COURT
