2019 (9) TMI 1420 - Commissioner - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - detention on the ground that the e Waybills have been expired because they were only valid up to 19-8-2018 - Whether the appellant contention that validity period for e waybill is two days as per G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017, is applicable to the present case or not? - HELD THAT - On a primary perusal of G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017, it is to be comprehended that the instructions in this G.O. are only applicable till date 30-9-2017, but not applicable to the present case, which was detected on 20-8-2018. Therefore, the appellant contentions with reference to this G.O are rejected. It is further pertinent here to record that as per APGST Rule 138(9), whenever any dealer could not transport the goods within the validity time of e Waybill, such e waybill needs to be cancelled electronically in the common portal within 24 hours of generation. But, in the present case though the dealer contended that there was heavy rain on 19-8-2018, that s why, they could not transport the goods, however failed to cancel the e waybill within 24 hours of generation. Rule 138(10) clearly prescribes that validity of e waybill for a distance up to 100km is one day only. The case law put forth by the appellant have also been perused and found to have no relevance to the present dispute on hand. Penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant could not put forth any dependable explanations and the Inspecting Authority s action on this aspect are found to be legitimate. The levy of tax penalty by the inspecting authority, are confirmed, and the appeal stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity period of the 'e-way bill' as per G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017.
2. Dependable and acceptable explanations against the levy of tax/penalty by the Inspecting Authority (IA).

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Validity Period of the 'e-way bill':

The appellant contended that the validity period for the 'e-way bill' is two days as per G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017. However, upon examination, it was found that the instructions in G.O.Ms. No. 309 were applicable only until 30-9-2017 and not to the present case, which occurred on 20-8-2018. Therefore, the appellant's contentions referencing this G.O. were rejected.

Furthermore, according to APGST Rule 138(9), if the goods could not be transported within the validity time of the 'e-way bill', the 'e-way bill' must be canceled electronically within 24 hours of generation. The appellant failed to cancel the 'e-way bill' within this timeframe, despite claiming heavy rain on 19-8-2018 as the reason for the delay. Rule 138(10) specifies that the validity of the 'e-way bill' for a distance up to 100 km is one day only. The case laws cited by the appellant were also reviewed and found irrelevant to the current dispute.

2. Dependable and Acceptable Explanations Against Levy of Tax/Penalty:

The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 122 of the APGST Act, which concern transporting taxable goods without the required documents, were not applicable as they had produced all necessary documents except the advanced 'e-way bill'. They also stated that the seller dealer had charged IGST in the invoices issued to them. Despite these arguments, the appellant admitted the offense and paid the tax and penalty.

Upon review, it was determined that the explanations provided by the appellant were not dependable. The IA's action in levying the tax and penalty was found to be legitimate. The appellant's reliance on certain case laws and provisions did not hold, as the specific circumstances of their case did not align with the cited precedents.

Conclusion:

In light of the above findings and the clearly defined rule provisions, the appellant's contentions were not accepted and were deemed rejectable. The levy of tax and penalty by the IA was upheld as legitimate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Result of the Appeal:

The levy of tax and penalty by the Inspecting Authority was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.