Case Details: Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of GST (2025) 26 CENTAX 332 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Yashwant Varma & Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.
- S/Shri Abhas Mishra, Keane Sardinha & Sumit Saini, Advs. for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, Yash Upadhyay, Ms Ishita Panday, Advs., Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC, Shubham Goel & Mayank Kamra, Advs. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner imported goods from Italy, for which Customs and IGST were paid. The goods were being transported under an incomplete e-way bill (missing Part B) and were intercepted by GST authorities during transit. The petitioner rectified the e-way bill on the following day, but the goods were detained, and a demand for GST along with an equivalent penalty was raised. The petitioner submitted a bond to have the goods released under protest and filed an appeal, which was dismissed. The petitioner contended that the only issue was an incomplete e-way bill, and taxes on the goods had been duly paid. The levy of penalty was unjustified, as it was a minor breach, not involving fraud or intent to evade taxes. The respondent contended that Section 129 is intended to impose a statutory penalty for any contravention of the Act, even in the absence of fraudulent intent or evasion.
High Court Held
The High Court noted that Section 129 is primarily concerned with the release of seized goods and not a provision to levy a statutory penalty. It emphasized that penalties should not be imposed for minor breaches, such as mistakes in documentation that are easily rectifiable, and that there was no intent to evade taxes.
Therefore, the Court held that the penalty under Section 129 could not be levied in this case, as the breach was procedural and not substantial. The impugned orders were quashed, and the demand for tax and penalty was set aside.
List of Cases Cited
- A. G. Varadarajulu v. State of Tamil Nadu — (1998) 4 SCC 231 — Referred [Para 41]
- HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Commr. of Value Added Tax — 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7876 — Referred [Para 18]
- Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa — (1969) 2 SCC 627 — Referred [Para 18]
- Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India — (1971) 1 SCC 85 — Referred [Para 34]
- R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka — (1992) 1 SCC 335 — Referred [Para 30]
- State of Gujarat & Ors. v. M/s Saw Pipes Ltd. — 2023 SCC OnLine SC 428 — Referred [Para 18]
- Synergy Fertichem (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat — [2019] 112 taxmann.com 370 (Gujarat) — Followed [Paras 43 and 48]
- Synergy Fertichem P. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat — 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 6127 — Referred [Para 39]
