Summary
Exercising Article 142 on the particular facts, the Supreme Court reduced to Rs.27 lakh the penalty for transporting the company’s machine on an expired e-way bill, while retaining the Rs.54 lakh tax demand. The machine was being moved for the owner’s contractual work and no evidence showed a proposed sale or other-party use. The Court confined its consideration to penalty, required payment of the Rs.81 lakh total subject to prior payments, and expressly barred precedential treatment.
Issues
- Whether the penalty warranted reduction within the limited scope of notice issued by the Supreme Court.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court granted case-specific relief reducing the penalty by half and expressly stated that the order was not a precedent. (¶ 17–20)
Held
- The Court confined its examination to quantum of penalty. The owner remained responsible for generating a fresh e-way bill when transport did not occur within the original validity period. (¶ 17)
- The undisputed ownership and movement for the company’s own contracts, absence of evidence of sale or other-party use, and prior generation of an e-way bill supported exceptional reduction on these facts. (¶ 17–18)
- The tax demand of Rs.54 lakh was retained and the penalty reduced from Rs.54 lakh to Rs.27 lakh. After credit for payments already made, the total was to be deposited by 29 February 2024, followed by expeditious release of the vehicle and machine. (¶ 19)
- The relief rested on Article 142 and was expressly directed not to be treated as a precedent. It did not establish a general exemption for inter-unit movement or expired e-way bills. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal disposed of: tax of Rs.54 lakh retained, penalty reduced to Rs.27 lakh, total Rs.81 lakh subject to prior payments payable by 29 February 2024. Expeditious release after payment directed; order expressly non-precedential. Pending application disposed of.