Expiry Of E-Way Bill When Goods Could Not Be Delivered

Case:

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) v/s SATYAM SHIVAM PAPERS (P.) LTD – Supreme Court of India

In an appeal against the Telangana HC Order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India imposed a sum of ₹59,000/- (in addition to costs of ₹10,000 imposed by HC) on the Revenue Department and to be recovered, directly from the officers responsible.

Facts:

In this case, a vehicle carrying goods got delayed in reaching destination by one day (and time period of the e-way bill was not extended accordingly) due to traffic blockage and agitation. The Revenue officer alleged tax evasion because e-waybill was expired one day earlier. The goods were detained at the house of a relative of the Revenue Officer. A penalty of Rs.69000 was imposed on the taxpayer.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted High Court’s comments as to –

• The delivery of the goods was delayed due to traffic as there was agitation. It was duty of the Revenue officer to consider the explanation offered by the Petitioner as to why the goods could not have been delivered during the validity of the e-waybill, and instead he is focusing on the fact that e-waybill should have been extended 4 hours before or after the expiry thereof.
• Revenue officer simply states that it is clear evasion of tax and so he did not consider the explanations. This is illegal and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
• How the Revenue Department could have drawn an inference that petitioner is evading tax merely because the e-waybill has expired. There was no material proof to conclude the evasion of tax merely on account of lapsing of time in the e-waybill.

Judgement:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there was no intention to evade tax on the part of the petitioner. When the fact of traffic blockage due to agitation, is taken into consideration, the state also remains responsible for not providing smooth passage.

Aditi Mittal, Audit Associate, SW India