2020 (1) TMI 1283 - Commissioner - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the conveyance - timing of generation of E-way bill and interception of the vehicle - HELD THAT - The appellant's contention that the vehicle was intercepted at approximately 9.00 to 9.05 PM instead of 8.45 PM. This argument can not be accepted in absence of any evidence. They have not submitted any evidence in support of this argument, The e-way bill also generated after the interception of the vehicle i.e. at 8.47 PM. As the vehicle was not accompanied with any valid document i.e. e-way bill, invoice etc., prescribed as per law and that the appellant has generated e-way bill after interception of vehicle by the CGST officers, the penal provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 were correctly invoked. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interception of goods without proper documentation, imposition of penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017, delay in filing appeal and condonation of the same.

Interception of Goods without Proper Documentation:
The appellant's conveyance was intercepted by CGST officers due to discrepancies like the absence of invoice/challan and e-way bill, with only a computerized kanta slip present. The goods and conveyance were detained under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017. A show-cause notice proposing tax and penalty was issued, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?3,48,370. The appellant argued that the vehicle was intercepted later than claimed, and the e-way bill was generated after the interception. However, no evidence supported this claim, and as per records, the e-way bill was generated post-interception at 8:47 PM. The absence of valid documentation justified the penalty under Section 129.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017:
The adjudicating authority correctly invoked penal provisions under Section 129 due to the intercepted vehicle lacking essential documents, even though the appellant generated the e-way bill after the interception. The appellant's argument of interception timing was unsupported by evidence, and the absence of valid documents upon interception warranted the penalty. The appellant's failure to provide proof of interception timing and the sequence of events led to the rejection of their appeal.

Delay in Filing Appeal and Condonation:
The appellant filed the appeal one day late, citing a genuine reason of pre-scheduled hearings in CESTAT, New Delhi. The appeal for condonation of delay was submitted during the personal hearing, and the delay was condoned under Section 107(4) of CGST Act, 2017. The Additional Commissioner accepted the reason for delay as valid and allowed the appeal to be considered despite the late filing, ensuring procedural fairness in addressing the issue of delay.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of interception without proper documentation, imposition of penalty under Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017, and the procedural aspect of delay in filing the appeal, providing a detailed understanding of the case and the adjudicating authority's decision.