Karnataka High Court
M/S Plaunshe vs Additional Commissioner on 14 November, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46875
WP No. 19487 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 19487 OF 2024 (T-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. PLAUNSHE
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.194
1ST AND 2ND FLOOR,
AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT
DOMLUR,
BENGALURU - 560 071,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
MR. RISHI DIWAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
Digitally signed OF COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
by
SHARADAVANI (ZONE 3),
B
Location: High 8TH FLOOR
Court of VAJIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-1
Karnataka
GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
2. JOINT COMMISSIONER
OF COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
(APPEALS - 5),
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 027.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46875
WP No. 19487 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER
(VIGILANCE - 11),
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. HEMA KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 14.06.2024 BEARING NO. ZAC/03/BNG-5/SMR-38/2024-25
PASSED BY THE R-1 (ANNX-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of CERTIORARI setting aside the Order dated 14.06.2024 bearing No.ZAC/03/BNG-5/SMR-38/2024- 25 passed by the 1st Respondent (Annexure A).
ii. Quash the entire proceedings pursuant to Notice dated 22.05.2024 bearing No. ZAC/03/BNG-5/SMR- 38/2024-25 issued by the 1st Respondent (Annexure E).
iii. Pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR case, and in the interests of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the impugned material on record will indicate that on 17.01.2022, the goods of the petitioner were being transported from Delhi to Bangalore, in the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01/AE-3323, when they were intercepted on 18.01.2022 by respondent No.3, who initiated proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017and passed an order dated 20.01.2022 levying CGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738/- and SGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 - the First Appellate Authority, who passed an order dated 09.06.2022 allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner is as under:
"ORDER UNDER SECTION 107(11) OF THE KGST & CGST ACT, 2017 This appeal is filed under section 107(1) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 (herein -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR afterwards referred to as 'Act') by M/s. PLAUNSHEE, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') against the order dated: 20.01.2022 passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017 and read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 by the Commercial Tax Officer, (Vigilance)- 11, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent") and levying CGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738-00 and SGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738-00 totaling penalty U/s. 129(1)(a) of the KGST & CGST Act of Rs.6,75,476-00. The appeal is filed in time and hence admitted for hearing.
2. In response to the notice issued Sri Tushar Jalan, Tax Consultants and DAR of the appellant appeared before me and argued the case as reiterated in the grounds of appeal and requested to allow the appeal. Before I proceed to analyze the issue and give my findings, the facts of the case and grounds or appeal are as follows.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The dealer is a dealer in various Flooring Products.
2. The dealer was carrying Laminated Floorings moving from New Delhi to Bangalore in vehicle No. KA01AE3323.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. The Vehicle was carrying a valid Tax Invoice vide No. LKPL/21-22/1830 & E-Way Bill vide No. 7212 3489 9023.
4. The vehicle was apprehended at Horamavu at 1115 AM on 18.01.2022 by Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance)-11.
5. Form GST MOV - 01 was issued by the said Officer at 11.55AM on 18.01.2022.
6. Form GST MOV - 04 & Form GST MOV - 06 was also issued on 19.01.2022, wherein it is alleged that the goods is different.
7. Form GST MOV - 04 & Form GST MOV - 06 was also issued on 19.01.2022, wherein it is alleged that the goods are delivered in unrelated place.
8. Form GST MOV -7 was issued on 19.01.2022.
9. In response to GST MOV-07, left with no choice the dealer made the payment of CGST & SGST Penalty of Rs.3,37,738/- each, on 19.01.2022 as demanded by the Officer vide CPIN220129000234779 subsequently filed GST DRC-07 vide ARN : ZD29012200092T.
10. The vehicle was released on 19.01.022 after payment of Penalty as demanded by the Officer.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. The concerned Officer issued the Order bearing date on 20.01.2022 & served upon us on 24.01.2022.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. The CTO has erred by demanding Penalty on a transaction on which was covered by valid Tax Invoice & E-Way Bill.
2. The CTO has erred by not appreciating the facts that there is no intention to evade Tax as evident by valid E-Way Bills.
3. The CTO has erred by not accepting the dealer's contention that amendment to Registration to include Additional Place of Business could not be done in time due to the COVID situation in the Country.
4. The CTO has erred by not taking a lenient view in the matter and applying Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dt.14.09.2018 as this amounts to minor mistake & therefore penalty of Rs.1000/- should be applicable.
5. The CTO has erred by not uploading the required Notices/Orders on the common GSTN portal in violation of CIRCULAR No. GST- 02/2018-19 dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and -7- NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
Prayer
1. The above mentioned CTO Order be set-side.
2. The amount paid be refunded to the appellant at the earliest.
3. Heard and perused the records & grounds of appeal. Facts of the case and grounds urged by the appellant are examined with reference to the provisions of the Act and law. After examining the case, my findings are as follows.
4. The goods conveyance bearing No. KA01AE3323 was intercepted and inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance)-11, Bangalore on 18.01.2022 at 11.55 am at Horamavu, while being ready to unload the goods. In the order in FORM GST MOV-09 dated 20.01.2022, it was discussed as under:
The documents tendered were verified and noticed that the tax Invoice No. LKPL/21- 22/183 dated 17.01.2022 and E Way Bill No. 721234899023 dated 17.01.2022, accompanying the goods were destined to M/s.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR Plaunshe, Hormavalu, Bangalore-560 043, but found prepared to unload the goods at an unrelated premises @ No. 8, Banjara Layout Main Road, Kolkere, Horamavu, Bangalore- 560043. M/s. Plaunshe Bangalore has no declared additional business premises at No. 8, Banjara Layout Main Road, Kalkere, Horamavu, Bangalore560043, thereby the concerned persons have contravened the provisions of the Section 31 of the Act read with Rule 46 of the Rules made there under by furnishing incomplete information or not mentioning the true and correct information relate to their place of business delivery of the goods. Therefore, the documents are defective. Also the provisions of Section 69 of the Act containing such wrong details in the Tax Invoice read with Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 and concurrent Rule 138A f the Karnataka Goods and Services Rules, 2017 made there under (Rules for Short) were contravened.
5. On the other hand, the appellant submits that,
1. The CTO has erred by demanding Penalty on a transaction on which was covered by valid Tax Invoice & E-Way Bill.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR
2. The CTO has erred by not appreciating the facts that there is no intention to evade Tax as evident by valid E-Way Bills.
3. The CTO has erred by not accepting the dealer's contention that amendment to Registration to include Additional Place of Business could not be done in time due to the COVID situation in the Country.
4. The CTO has erred by not taking a lenient view in the matter and applying Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dt. 14.09.2018 as this amounts to minor mistake & therefore penalty of Rs. 1000/- should be applicable.
5. The CTO has erred by not uploading the required Notices/Orders on the common GSTN portal in violation of CIRCULAR No. GST-02/2018-19 dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
6. The contentions by the appellant in the grounds of appeal, additional submission made, the reliance placed on various Court decisions, the copy of e-way bill submitted and other related details have been examined with reference to the concerned penalty
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR records, para wise remarks submitted by the respondent and the relevant e-way bill provisions and penalty provisions of GST Law.
7. Section 68 of the Act provides for inspection of goods in movement which reads as under: -
(1) The Government may require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed.
(2) The details of documents required to be carried under sub-section (1) shall be validated in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Where any conveyance referred to in sub-section (1) is intercepted by the proper officer at any place, he may require the person to charge of the said conveyance to produce the documents prescribed under the said sub section and devices for verification, and the said person shall be liable to produce the documents and devices and also allow the inspection of goods.
8. Provisions under Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 relating to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR "Documents and devices to be carried by a person-in-charge of a Conveyance", are as under:
138. Information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of goods and generation of e-way bill:
(1) Every registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees,
(i) in relation to a supply; or
(ii) for reasons other than supply; or
(iii) due to inward supply from an unregistered person, shall, before commencement of such movement, furnish information relating to the said goods in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01, electronically, on the common portal.
(2) Where the goods are transported by the registered person as a consignor or the recipient of supply as the consignee, whether in his own conveyance or a hired one or by railways or by air or by vessel, the said person or the recipient may generate the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR electronically on the common portal after furnishing information in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01.
(2)....(14) 138A. Documents and devices to be carried by a person-in-charge of a conveyance.-
(1) The person in charge of a conveyance shall carry
-
(a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be; and
(b) a copy of the e-way bill or the e-way bill number, either physically or mapped to a Radio Frequency Identification Device embedded on to the conveyance in such manner as may be notified by the Commissioner.
(2) .....(5) When both the Section 68 and rule 138 and 138A read together, any registered person who causes the movement of goods, for the reason of supply or other than by way of supply, of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees shall carry e-way bill, where in both Part A and Part B are filled. In part A, the details of the transaction as per the Invoice and In Part B, details
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR of the transporter and the goods vehicle to be entered duly. The registered person has to carry the Invoice or any other document and this mandatory e-way bill, where in both Part A and Part B are duly to be entered, during the movement of goods, expect under certain circumstances.
9. In the present case, tax invoice along with E-way bill No 721234899023 dated 17.01.2022 06.51 pm was generated at 06.51 pm , at the time of dispatch from the premises of the supplier at ICD White Field, Bangalore, Karnataka-560071 to ship address at Banjara Layout Main Road, Horamavu, Bangalore, Karnataka-560043. The validity of the e- Way Bill was upto 18.01.2022. No intention to evade tax as appellant raised invoice along with e way bill long before.
That the E-way Bill was generated well in advance and therefore not possible to cancel the E-way Bill to evade tax and the transaction in any case was reported and therefore tax cannot be saved/evaded as alleged and under the circumstances no tax/penalty can be levied reliance can be placed on Tvl. R.K. Motors v. State Tax Officer, (Madras High Court) That the small and technical error does not warrant penalty. The documents attached establish one thing beyond doubt that the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR documents were generated and were available and there was no intention for tax evasion.
10. In Satyendra Goods Transport (2018-30-GSTJ-
387) the Hon'ble High Court had held that "the assertion neither that the IGST has already been paid, has also not been denied by the opposite party nor that both the consignor and consignee are registered dealers. Moreover, the requisite details having been mentioned in the Invoice etc. the same would be verified at the point of destination. The Hon'ble High Court held that there was no intention to evade tax" accordingly the Hon'ble High Court quashed the order levying penalty.
11. The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of M/s. Sathyam Shivam Papers (P) Ltd., V. Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax and 4 others, (2021) (6) TMI 378, has held that "It was the duty of 2nd respondent to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner as to why the goods could not have been delivered during the validity of the e-way bill, and instead, he is harping on the fact that the e-way bill is not extended even four (04)
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR hours before the expiry or four (04) hours after the expiry, which is untenable"
"In our considered opinion, there was no material before the 2nd respondent to come to the conclusion that there was evasion of tax by the petitioner merely on account of lapsing of time mentioned in the e-way bill because even the 2nd respondent does not say that there was any evidence of an attempt to sell the goods to somebody else on 06.01.2020. On account of the non-extension of the validity of the e- way bill by the petitioner or the auto trolley driver, no presumption can be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax"
"We deprecate the conduct of 2nd respondent in not even adverting to the response given by the petitioner to the Form GST MOV-07 in Form GST MOV09, and his deliberate intention to treat the validity of the expiry on the e-way bill as amounting to evasion of tax without any evidence of such evasion of tax by the petitioner".
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Recent judgement held in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. v. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21132/2021 dated January 12, 2022) GST E-way bill Expiry of E-way bill Demand of GST and imposition of penalty on expiry of e- way bill - Goods were kept in the house of a relative for 16 days by the officer and not in designated place for sale keeping Impugned order of High Court setting aside the levy of tax and penalty and imposing costs of Rs. 10,000 on the officer - HELD:
Inference by officer that petitioner was attempting to evade tax baseless - Intent in keeping goods in private place questionable High Court meticulously and correctly examined and found no fault or intent to evade Goods in question could not be taken to the destination within time for reasons beyond the control of respondent-taxpayer including traffic blockage and due to agitation - State alone remains responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic - No question of law relating to operation and effect of Section 129 involved - Considering department's conduct and harassment faced by taxpayer, costs of Rs.59,000/- imposed in addition to costs of Rs.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR 10,000/- imposed by the High Court - Special Leave Petition filed by department dismissed - Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Section 129 of Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The above judgments very much applicable to the case in hand;
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in the case of M/s.Sri Gopikrishna Vs. The State of Tripura and Others (WP(C) 317 of 2020) (07/01/2021), has held that "the petitioner has committed gross negligence by not upgrading or amending the e-way bill when the regular e-way bill had expired in transit. The e-way bill was upgraded or amended when the consignment was detained. As such, there is no irregularity or lack of proportionality in imposing the penalty. Mr.Dey, learned Addl.GA has pointed out that the penalty has been imposed only for not tendering the valid e-way bill for the movement of the vehicle with goods. Tax and the penalty have been imposed as per the law, On query from this court, Mr.Dey has candidly submitted that in respect of the payment of the tax by the petitioner, the respondents have not stated anything specifically or in denying the statement in that regard.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR Having appreciated the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the breach definitely falls within the ambit of Section 125 of the CGST Act and as such the petitioner is excisable to the penalty. But the pertinent question that falls for consideration is whether the Superintendent of State Tax has exceeded his jurisdiction in imposing the penalty? Having read the provisions of imposing penalty as provided under Section 125 of the CGST Act, we are of the view for the breach which falls under Section 125, the penalty. So far, the penalty for an amount equivalent to tax is concerned those are for the incidents when the tax is sought to be evaded or not deducted under Section 51 etc. In the result, this petition stands partly allowed.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Royal Enterprises [2016 (337) E.L.T 482 (S.C)] where it was held that mere omission to disclose details would not amount to suppression of facts unless there is deliberate attempt to evade.
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s.Hemanth Motors Vs. State of Karnataka (WP No.3337/2020 (T-Res) dated 20.11.2020
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR Confiscation of goods along with the vehicle Extension of validity of E-way bill Petitioner contends that the conveyance carrying the vehicles reached the place of destination on 01.01.2019 before the expiry of the validity of the e-way bills but the vehicles could not be unloaded on the same day and were being unloaded on 02.01.2019 Held that:
"Where there is no dispute that the conveyance had reached the place of destination well within the expiry of e-way bills, and the conveyance was being unloaded without any further transit, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority should have considered the merits of the proceedings against the petitioners in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry. The failure to consider the petitioners case in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has resulted in an improper and untenable order."
Further the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemanth Motors vide Writ Appeal
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR No.381 of 2021 (T-Res) dated 27.07.2021 has upheld the single bench judgment of the above by stating that "having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge."
16. Detention of goods on the ground that the vehicle took a different route or reached wrong destination.
Held: The High Court observed that allegation of 'wrong destination' or that the driver has taken a different route is not a ground to detain the vehicle carrying the goods or levy tax or penalty. It was held that the fact that the vehicle was found at another place does not automatically lead to any presumption that there was an intention of evasion of tax. The amount collected was directed to be refunded with interest 6%. [Commercial Steel Company v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, 2020-VIL-116-TEL]
17. Section 125 of the KGST/CGST Act, 2017 reads:
125. General penalty -Any person, who contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder for which no penalty is separately
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR provided for in this Act, shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty-five thousand rupees.
126. General disciplines related to penalty - (1) No officer under this Act shall impose any penalty for minor breaches of tax regulations or procedural requirements and in particular, any omission or mistake in documentation which is easily rectifiable and made without fraudulent intent or gross negligence. Explanation - For the purpose of this sub-section - (a) a breach shall be considered a minor breach' if the amount of tax involved is less than five thousand rupees; (b) an omission or mistake in documentation shall be considered to be easily rectifiable if the same is an error apparent on the face of record. (2) The penalty imposed under this Act shall depend on the facts and CHAPTER XIX OFFENCES AND PENALTIES 156 circumstances of each case and shall be commensurate with the degree and severity of the breach. (3)No penalty shall be imposed on any person without giving him an opportunity of being heard. (4) The officer under this Act shall while imposing penalty in an order for a breach of any law, regulation or procedural requirement, specify the nature of the breach and the applicable law, regulation or procedure under which the amount of penalty for the breach has been specified (5) When a person voluntarily discloses to an officer under this Act the circumstances of a
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR breach of the tax law, regulation or procedural requirement prior to the discovery of the breach by the officer under this Act, the proper officer may consider this fact as a mitigating factor quantifying the penalty for that person. (6) The provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases where the penalty specified under this Act is either a fixed sum or expressed as a fixed percentage.
18. In view of the above discussions, it is summarised that:
1) The e-Way Bill No. 721234899023 dated 17.01.2022 generated by M/s Lotus Kaleen Pvt. Ltd., with GSTIN: 07AAACL5989Q1ZK at 6.51 PM which was valid up to 18/01/2022 along with tax invoice No. LKPL/21-22/1830 dated 17.01.2022 with invoice value at Rs.22,14,062-00 (inclusive of tax). Issued by the consignor M/s. Lotus Kaleen Pvt. Ltd., and billed to M/s. Plaunshe, Bangalore, the appellant.
1 Tax Invoice Number Tax invoice No. LKPL/21-
22/1830 dated
17.01.2022 with invoice
value at Rs.22,14,062-00
(inclusive of tax).
2 e-Way Bill Number 721234899023 dated
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875
WP No. 19487 of 2024
HC-KAR
17.01.2022
3 e-Way Bill valid upto 18/01/2022
4 Conveyance vehicle KA 01A E3323
Number
5 Date of Interception 18.01.2022 at 11.55 am
of vehicle at Horamavu,
From the above, it could be seen that at the time of interception of the vehicle there was a valid e-way bill exist. However, the respondent has cited the reason for detention and levy of penalty was that the address mentioned in the tax invoice and e Way Bill is M/s. Plaunshe, No.36, Horamavu, Agara Village, Banjara Layout Main Road, Horamavu, Bangalore 560 043 but goods were ready to unload at No. 8, Banjara Layout Main Road, Kalkere, Horamavu, Bangalore-560043.
ii) Further, the appellant submits that, the address No. 8, Banjara Layout Main Road, Kalkere, Horamavu, Bangalore-560043, where the conveyance vehicle was intercepted is the additional place of business of the appellant. However, the appellant stated that the amendment to Registration to include Additional Place of Business could not be done in time due to the COVID situation in the Country. In the appeal stage, the appellant submits the details of additional place of business which includes the one which is one where the goods were ready to unload at No. 8, Banjara Layout
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR Main Road, Kalkere, Horamavu, Bangalore- 560043. The above additional place located near to the registered address of the appellant.
iii) At the same time, a physical verification of the stock was also taken by the respondent and no discrepancies noticed. This is evident that the appellant has no intention to evade the taxes due to the Government.
iv) On account of the goods were ready to unload at No. 8, Banjara Layout Main Road, Kalkere, Horamavu, Bangalore-560043 по presumption can be drawn "that there was an intention to evade tax". The respondent committed error by levying penalty in spite of conveyance carrying valid documents like tax invoice and valid E-Way bill.
19. In view of the above observations and findings, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.
The Order passed by levying CGST penalty of Rs. 3,37,738-00 and SGST penalty of Rs.3,37,738-00 under Section 129(3) of KGST
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR and CGST Act, 2017 and under section 20 of IGST Act, vide order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the respondent is set aside to meet the ends of equity and justice.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript edited and signed by me on 09.06.2022."
4. Subsequent to the said order passed by respondent No.2 - the First Appellate Authority in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1-the Revisional Authority initiated suo motu revision proceedings by issuing a show cause notice dated 22.05.2024, to which, the petitioner filed a reply dated 27.05.2024, pursuant to which, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 14.06.2024, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
5. As can be seen from the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 - the First Appellate Authority, the explanation offered by the petitioner for unloading the goods at the additional place of business, which was later registered by the petitioner has been accepted by respondent No.2 - First Appellate Authority. Under these circumstances, merely because a different
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR view was possible, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 - the Revisional Authority was justified in reversing the well considered order passed by respondent No.2 - the First Appellate Authority especially when no prejudice or hardship can be shown to have been caused to the respondents nor any monetary loss to the respondents warranting respondent No.1 to set aside a well considered and well reasoned order passed by respondent No.2 -
the First Appellate Authority and consequently, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No.1 clearly fell in error in reversing the order of respondent No.2 - the First Appellate Authority and the impugned order deserves to be set aside by restoring the order passed by respondent No.2 - the First Appellate Authority.
6. Under identical circumstances, the High Court of Madras in the case of SMART ROOFING PRIVATE LIMITED V. THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INT), ADJUDICATION, MADURAI in W.P.(MD) No.5720/2022 and W.M.P.(MD) No.4567/2022 dated 30.03.2022, held as under:
"1. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 in Form GST Mov-9 seeking to impose
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR penalty of Rs. 2,50,387/- under CGST and SGST each, totally for a sum of Rs. 5,00,774/- under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. The petitioner had consigned the goods from its main place of business at Chennai to its additional place of business, Sastha Bombalan Modren Rice Mill, 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai. This was not the additional place of business, as per the original registration certificate obtained by the petitioner on 02.08.2018. However, in the E-way bill and the delivery Challan, the petitioner had declared the consignee as 130, Ring Road Chintamani, Madurai, through the consignment was meant for being discharged at its new place of business at Sastha Mombalan Modern Rice Mill, 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 009. Under these circumstances, the consignment along with lorry was detained on 22.03.2022. A show cause notice dated 23.03.2022, to which the petitioner has replied on 25.03.2022, which has culminated in the impugned order dated 25.03.2022.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that there is no intention to evade tax as the petitioner has generated E-way bill by declaring the consignee as its additional place of business at No. 130, Ring Road Chintamani, Madurai. It is further submitted that ex post facto, i.e., on the date of the petitioner has taken steps for amending the registration by including Sastha Mombalan Modern Rice Mill, 3/237-B, Chintamani Road, Anuppandi, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 009
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR also as the additional place of business. It is submitted that the imposition of penalty under Section 129 (3) of the CGST and SGST is unwarranted under the circumstances.
4. Opposing the prayer, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent submits that the petitioner has an alternate remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017/SGST Act, 2017 and therefore there is no merits in this writ petition.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.
6. No doubt, the authorities acting under the Act were justified in detaining the goods inasmuch as there is a wrong declaration in the E-way bill. However, the facts indicate that the consignor and the consignee are one and the same entity, namely, Head Office and the Branch Office. In this case, the petitioner has a new place of business, but had not altered the GST Registration. However, steps have been taken to ex post facto include the new place of business altering the GST Registration. The registration certificate has also been amended.
7. Considering the fact that there is only a technical breach committed by the petitioner and there is no intention to evade tax, I am inclined to quash the impugned order and allow this writ petition by directing the respondent to release the vehicle and the consignment to the petitioner, if the same has not been released already.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46875 WP No. 19487 of 2024 HC-KAR
8. The writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 14.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A is hereby set aside.
(iii) The order dated 09.06.2022 at Annexure-B, passed by respondent No.2 - the First Appellate Authority is hereby restored.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 CT:BHK