Production of Invoice and E-way Bill Subsequent to Interception of Goods Couldn’t Absolve Assessee from Penalty | HC

Case Details: Akhilesh Traders v. State of U.P. - [2024] 160 taxmann.com 94 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
  • Pranjal Shukla for the Petitioner.
  • Ravi Shanker Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the goods of assessee were intercepted by the GST officers and upon interception, no e-way bill and invoice were present in vehicle carrying goods. The penalty was levied but the assessee challenged the order and submitted that these documents were produced by assessee subsequent to interception. The appeal was also rejected and it filed writ petition.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that in instant case, facts were undisputed that neither invoice nor E-way bill were accompanying goods. Therefore, the burden of proof that there was no mens rea for evasion of taxes was shifted to assessee. However, the assessee had not been able to rebut presumption of evasion of taxes, as he had not been able to explain absence of invoice and E-way bill.

Moreover, the production of such documents subsequent to interception could not absolve assessee from liability of penalty and if goods were not intercepted, the Government could have been out of its pocket with respect to GST payable on said goods. Therefore, the Court held that no interference was required with regard to impugned penalty orders and writ petition was liable to be dismissed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Axpress Logistics India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2018] 100 taxmann.com 34/18 GSTL 794 (All.) (para 4)
  • Modern Traders v. State of UP [2018] 14 GSTL 184 (All.) (para 4)
  • Falguni Steels v. State Of U.P. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 100/15 Centax 67 (All.) (para 4).