Kartar Singh v. Commissioner, Uttarakhand Condition GST Commissionerate

Kartar Singh v. Commissioner, Uttarakhand Point out GST Commissionerate
In the Higher Court docket of Uttarakhand
WP (M/S) 924/2023
Before Justice Ravindra Maithani
Resolved on July 18, 2023

Relevancy of the Case: Does the failure to carry an e-way invoice for transporting goods amount to tax evasion?

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Uttarakhand/Central Items and Providers Tax Act, 2017 (Portion 130, 164(4), 138)
• The Central Items and Solutions Tax Principles, 2017 (Rule 138A)

Pertinent Points of the Case

• The petitioner was transporting sure taxable items on behalf of a business on the Kashipur freeway.
• The state tax mobile unit intercepted the petitioner’s car or truck. They inspected the items and asked the petitioner to develop an e-way monthly bill, which he failed to do.
• They issued a show cause detect to the petitioner beneath Area 138 that needed him to shell out the penalty or demonstrate why his automobile should really not be confiscated. There was no reply from the petitioner’s side.
• A few months later, the authority issued a great and confiscated the motor vehicle under Area 130 of the Uttarakhand Items and Expert services Tax Act, 2017.
• In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the previously mentioned purchase.

Popular Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel argued that:
  • To begin with, confiscating a auto simply cannot manifest solely owing to failure to have an e-way bill. The authority need to demonstrate the intention to evade tax.
  • Secondly, that intention to evade tax has not been proved for the attraction of Portion 130.
• The respondent’s counsel submitted that several things clearly show the petitioner’s intention to evade tax, these as not getting on the appropriate highway, failure to carry an e-way invoice, cancellation of the firm’s registration, and so forth.

Opinion of the Bench

• Rule 138A of the Central Items and Products and services Tax Rules, 2017, states that any one transporting the items will have to also keep the e-way monthly bill.
• The petitioner’s intention to evade tax was proved by taking into consideration variables introduced by the respondent.
• The bench concluded that there was evident intent to evade tax.

Ultimate Determination

• The bench dismissed the writ petition.

---

Arnav Kaman, an undergraduate pupil at Rajiv Gandhi Nationwide University of Legislation, Punjab, geared up this case summary in the course of his internship with The Cyber Website India in January/February 2024.