GST | Non-Mentioning Vehicle Number In Part-B Of E-Way Bill Is Curable Defect: Karnataka High Court

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar directed to refund the entire amount imposed on the Petitioner as penalty excluding Rs. 25000 as also instructed to return the bank guarantee. The Karnataka High Court emphasized on how omission of vehicle number in Part-B of E-way Bill a 'curable effect' and procedural lapses as such would not invalidate the E-way Bill especially when the other documents viz., Invoice etc., tally at the time of interception, inspection and detention.

t is for the proposition that Penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/KGST Act cannot be applicable merely because Part B of E-Way Bill is not uploaded. The Government Advocate had relied upon Judgements of Madhya Pradesh High Court and stated that the. The High Court of Karnataka has disagreed with High Court of Madhya Pradesh and held that

Petitioner a transport service provider, was carrying a consignment from Chennai to Bangalore when the truck was intercepted. Upon inspection an order of detention was passed and penalty notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act on the ground that Part-B of the e-way bill did not contain/ mention the vehicle number at the time of interception.

Due to priority delivery to be made to a supplier in Bangalore, the Petitioner was willing to pay the penalty amount. However, the request to pay the penalty was rejected by the Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement who also passed a penalty order under Section 129 (3) and (6) of the CGST Act, 2017. Thereafter, penalty was paid by the Petitioner along with bank guarantee and consignment was released. On appeal against the penalty order, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals) as an Appellate Authority set aside same partly allowing the appeal and levied general penalty of Rs.25,000 and directed refund of the balance amount as well as release of the bank guarantee.

Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Revisional Authority) initiated suo moto revision proceedings under Section 108 of the KGST Act whereby original penalty order was restored. The Revisional Authority set aside appellate order.

Advocate Veena J. Kamat referred to detailed reply to penalty notice filed by the Petitioner to state that due to oversight omission to fill vehicle number in Part-B of the E-way Bill was a bonafide mistake which was condonable.

On the various judgment cited by the Government Advocate regarding GST Rules specifically mandate the uploading of Part B in the E-Way Bill, Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar distinguished the same on facts. The Karnataka High Court held that no penalty can be levied merely because Part B is not uploaded and relied on the Delhi High Court rationale in case of Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd.

The Karnataka High Court held that minor procedural lapses (like incomplete Part-B of E-way bill) should not automatically attract penalty under Section 129. The Karnataka High Court re-iterated principles relating to General discipline related to penalty that no penalty for minor breaches or easily rectifiable mistakes without fraudulent intent. Therein, the High Court also deliberated on Section 129 penal provision, particularly, non-obstante clause cannot override does not override Section 126 stipulating General Penalty. Thus, the Delhi High Court rejected the view that notwithstanding absence of mens rea, fraudulent motive or an intent to evade tax, where goods were sought to be transported in contravention of the provisions of the Act, a demand of tax would inevitably arise.

The Karnataka High Court found that Revisional Authority 'fell in error' in setting aside appellate order and as such was contrary to GST law.

Accordingly, the Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition.

Case Name: BVM TRANS Solutions Private Limited

For Petitioner: Advocates Veena J. Kamat, Govindraya Kamath K

For Respondent: AGA K. Hema Kumar