Kartar Singh v. Commissioner, Uttarakhand Point out GST Commissionerate

Kartar Singh v. Commissioner, Uttarakhand Condition GST Commissionerate
In the Substantial Court of Uttarakhand
WP (M/S) 924/2023
Right before Justice Ravindra Maithani
Determined on July 18, 2023

Relevancy of the Circumstance: Does the failure to have an e-way invoice for transporting merchandise volume to tax evasion?

Statutes and Provisions Concerned

• The Uttarakhand/Central Products and Products and services Tax Act, 2017 (Section 130, 164(4), 138)
• The Central Goods and Products and services Tax Procedures, 2017 (Rule 138A)

Applicable Information of the Scenario

• The petitioner was transporting sure taxable goods on behalf of a company on the Kashipur highway.
• The condition tax cell device intercepted the petitioner’s automobile. They inspected the goods and questioned the petitioner to make an e-way monthly bill, which he failed to do.
• They issued a clearly show cause observe to the petitioner beneath Section 138 that needed him to pay out the penalty or demonstrate why his vehicle ought to not be confiscated. There was no reply from the petitioner’s aspect.
• A few weeks afterwards, the authority issued a good and confiscated the auto under Part 130 of the Uttarakhand Products and Providers Tax Act, 2017.
• In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the previously mentioned purchase.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
  • To begin with, confiscating a auto cannot happen exclusively due to failure to carry an e-way bill. The authority must demonstrate the intention to evade tax.
  • Secondly, that intention to evade tax has not been proved for the attraction of Section 130.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that several variables demonstrate the petitioner’s intention to evade tax, these kinds of as not remaining on the correct freeway, failure to have an e-way bill, cancellation of the firm’s registration, and so forth.

Opinion of the Bench

• Rule 138A of the Central Items and Companies Tax Policies, 2017, states that anybody transporting the merchandise will have to also hold the e-way monthly bill.
• The petitioner’s intention to evade tax was proved by taking into consideration components offered by the respondent.
• The bench concluded that there was evident intent to evade tax.

Final Decision

• The bench dismissed the writ petition.

---

Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate college student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Legislation, Punjab, ready this circumstance summary during his internship with The Cyber Weblog India in January/February 2024.