Principal Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise Lucknow v. M/S Bushrah Export House Two Star Lucknow And Anr.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 122

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: (vii). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(xiv) of the CGST Act, 2017 for transporting taxable goods without the cover of specified documents i.e. e-way bill, read with the IGST Act, 2017." The respondents aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Lucknow wherein it was specifically stated that the inputs received by the respondents were sent from Surat to the warehouse of the respondents at Surat where they were processed and subsequently the goods were exported through ICD Kanpur after transporting the goods from Surat to Kanpur. They placed reliance upon the notification No.GSL/GST/Rule-138 (14)/B.19 dated 19.09.2018 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Gujarat State Ahmadabad wherein the authority had issued a notification providing that e-way bill was not required…
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

AFR Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29052 of 2021 Petitioner :- Principal Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise Lucknow And Anr Respondent :- M/S Bushrah Export House Two Star Lucknow And Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeepak Nag K.D.Nag Counsel for Respondent :- Vibhanshu Srivastava Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayant Kumar assisted by Sri Vibhanshu Srivastava, the counsel for the respondents. The present petition has been filed challenging the appellate order dated 13.08.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, GST and Central Excise whereby the Appeal No.31-GST/2020 has been allowed. The said appeal is stated to have been preferred by the respondents against the Order-in-Original dated 24.04.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-I, Lucknow whereby the claim of the respondents was rejected. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents moved an application seeking refund of the CGST through their application dated 20.02.2020 claiming an amount of Rs.1,84,17,252/- on the tax paid inputs of the Goods, which was ultimately exported by the respondents. It is claimed that after verifying the claims, prima-facie an acknowledgment was issued to the respondents and a provisional order dated 04.03.2020 allowing partial refund amounting to Rs.1,65,75,526.80 was granted on a provisional basis out of the total refund claimed. When the

claims of the respondent were subjected to scrutiny, the department was of the view that the provisional refund granted to the respondents was erroneous refund and, as such, a show cause notice dated 07.04.2020 was issued to the respondents calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the application for grant of refund may not be rejected and further why the recovery of the sanctioned amount should not be initiated against the respondents and why the recovery of Input Tax Credit of the remaining amount should not be initiated along with the interest thereupon. The show cause notice is contained in Annexure no.2 to the writ petition. From perusal of the show cause notice, it is clear that the allegations were that the respondents had claimed the Input Tax Credit in the form of IGST against the supply received from three Tax Payers named therein.

person, which has not been done. This fact was revealed to the department on the scrutinizing of GSTR-2A return filed by the respondents. It was further alleged that all theses three suppliers named above had done huge volume of business in a very short span of time and subsequently their registration was canceled. The respondents were called upon to show cause and to produce the invoices raised by the said suppliers / taxpayers and e-way bills generated in the process so as to ascertain if the goods were indeed received by the respondents and the Input Tax Credit has been claimed in accordance with the Section 16(2) of the CGST Act 2017.

It has been alleged that despite asking for the same, the respondents failed to produce the same and thus, they were asked to show cause as to why the action as prescribed in the show cause notice may not be taken. It is claimed that the respondents did not give the reply which led to the passing of the order dated 24.04.2020 (Annxure no.3). In the said order, it has been recorded that the taxpayer did not respond against the charges raised in the show cause notice and neither did the taxpayer appear on the personal hearing date and thus agreeing with the allegations levelled in the show cause notice, a view was formed by the Deputy Commissioner that the suppliers to the respondents had actually not supplied the goods in the absence of their being any e-way bill generated in favour of the respondents and thus the following order came to be passed : "(i).

(vi). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(viii) of the CGST Act, 2017 for obtaining refund fraudulently, read with the IGST Act, 2017. (vii). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(xiv) of the CGST Act, 2017 for transporting taxable goods without the cover of specified documents i.e. e-way bill, read with the IGST Act, 2017." The respondents aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Lucknow wherein it was specifically stated that the inputs received by the respondents were sent from Surat to the warehouse of the respondents at Surat where they were processed and subsequently the goods were exported through ICD Kanpur after transporting the goods from Surat to Kanpur.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

Placing reliance on the said notification, the respondents argued before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the foundation for passing of the order, namely non-generation of e-way bills had no basis as the goods were received by the respondents from suppliers at Surat at their office at Surat and thus there was no requirement of the generation of e-way bill by the suppliers. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreeing with the contentions as raised by the respondents proceeded to allow the appeal by means of the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2021 whereby, the appeal was allowed and the order under challenge was set aside and further directions were issued to sanction the refund of amount of Rs.18,41,725/- to the appellant.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The concise order integrates its reasoning with the operative directions. The complete packaged record controls.

Operative decision and relief

19.09.2018 was clearly in favour of the respondents. In the present case, no allegations were levelled in the show cause notice to the effect that the respondents had transferred the finished goods for export from Surat to Kanpur without e-way bill as such the arguments of Sri Nag on that count are without any foundation and thus liable to be rejected. In view of the specific finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods were received by the respondents through e-way bills within the same city, there was no requirement of generation of e-way bills as provided under the notification dated 19.09.2018, the said finding has not been shown to be perverse or in any way arbitrary or illegal in the arguments as raised by Sri Nag and referred to above. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the appellate order. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.9.2022 VNP/-

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Principal Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise Lucknow v. M/S Bushrah Export House Two Star Lucknow And Anr. concerns issue and context: (vii). i impose the penalty amounting to rs.79,60,365/- under section 122 (1)(xiv) of the cgst act, 2017 for transporting taxable goods without the cover of specified documents i.e. e-way bill, read with the igst act, 2017." the respondents aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the additional commissioner (appeals) cgst, lucknow wherein it was specifically stated that the inputs received by the respondents were sent from surat to the warehouse of the respondents at surat where they were processed and subsequently the goods were exported through icd kanpur after transporting the goods from surat to kanpur. they placed reliance upon the notification no.gsl/gst/rule-138 (14)/b.19 dated 19.09.2018 issued by the commissioner of state tax, gujarat state ahmadabad wherein the authority had issued a notification providing that e-way bill was not required… The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29052 of 2021.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: (vii). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(xiv) of the CGST Act, 2017 for transporting taxable goods without the cover of specified documents i.e. e-way bill, read with the IGST Act, 2017." The respondents aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Lucknow wherein it was specifically stated that the inputs received by the respondents were sent from Surat to the warehouse of the respondents at Surat where they were processed and subsequently the goods were exported through ICD Kanpur after transporting the goods from Surat to Kanpur. They placed reliance upon the notification No.GSL/GST/Rule-138 (14)/B.19 dated 19.09.2018 issued by the Commissioner of State Tax, Gujarat State Ahmadabad wherein the authority had issued a notification providing that e-way bill was not required… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 122—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 122 and the decision date 2022-09-05; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is Principal Commissioner Cgst And Central Excise Lucknow v. M/S Bushrah Export House Two Star Lucknow And Anr., the proceeding is Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29052 of 2021, and the decision is dated 2022-09-05. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Pankaj Bhatia,J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 16; GST statutory provision - Section 16(2); GST statutory provision - Section 50; GST statutory provision - Section 54; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 122. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_SUBSEQUENT_TREATMENT_CHECK_PENDING. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 16 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 16(2) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 50 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 54 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 122 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• KAMAL ENVIROTECH PVT. LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF GST AND ANR — Delhi High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Detention, Seizure & E-Way Bill

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_EXACT_SANITIZED_MIRROR · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY