2020 (10) TMI 887 - Commissioner - GST

Levy of tax and penalty - Detention of Goods - allegation that Some material/goods were found without invoice and E-way Bill and the rest of the material were also without valid E-way Bill as the vehicle number was different in the said E-way Bill - HELD THAT - The adjudicating authority in impugned order dated 06.12,2018 no where mentioned that how much quantity was without invoice, without E-way bill and further no specific mention has been made in impugned order' about the rest of tree material/goods which was without valid E-way bill, only the adjudicating authority has mentioned in order that the vehicle number is different in the said E-way bill. The adjudicating authority in impugned order in the column Conveyance Number has mentioned RJ-32-GA-8579 whereas in the column details of conveyance detained has been mentioned as R3-14-GF-6858 whereas on perusal of order no such vehicle has been used by the appellant in movement of goods. From the above, it appeared that adjudicating authority while passing the order has not paid proper attention. The e-way bill shall not be valid for movement of goods by road unless the information in Part-B of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished except in the case of movement covered under the third proviso to sub-rule (3) and the proviso to sub-rule (5) - As per N/N.12/2018 dated 07.03.2018 in Rule 138 (3) third proviso which clearly states that where the goods are transported for a distance of upto 50 kms within the State from the place of business of the consignor to the place of transporter for Uther transportation, the supplier or the recipient, as the case may be, the transporter may not furnish the details of conveyance in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01, the appellant was not under an obligation to fill Part-B of the e-way bill, therefore, the appellant has not committed any error of law at the time of downloading e-way bill. There are no intention at the hands of the appellant nor the appellant was supposed to fill up Part-B giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in a vehicle, which is meant for transportation to the same to its transporter. Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle number in Part-B can not be a ground for seizure of the goods. Moreover, there is no loss of revenue. In this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure by the adjudicating authority. It is obligatory on the part of adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate reasoned order. Penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant has submitted copies of both the invoices along with E-way Bills mentioning there in all details in Part A except the corrected vehicle number in Part-B which they himself admitted that they could not change the vehicle number which is a technical error and which was not mandatory because the movement of vehicle was within the 50 Km area. Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number and accompanied the E-way bill with wrong vehicle number along with the goods. They are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the impugned order under the RGST & CGST Act, 2017.
2. Discrepancies in the E-way bill and invoices.
3. Adequacy of the adjudicating authority’s enquiry.
4. Admission of liability by the appellant.
5. Appropriateness of the show cause notice.
6. Correctness of details in the impugned order.
7. Applicability of penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Impugned Order:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was "bad in law, against the provisions of RGST & CGST Act, 2017 and against principles of natural justice." The adjudicating authority failed to provide a detailed explanation of the discrepancies found, specifically the quantity of goods without invoices and valid E-way bills. The order lacked proper attention to the facts and submissions presented by the appellant.

2. Discrepancies in the E-way Bill and Invoices:
The primary discrepancy noted was that "some material/goods were found without invoice and E-way Bill and the rest of the material were also without valid E-way Bill as the vehicle number was different in the said E-way Bill." The appellant argued that this was a technical error without any intention of GST evasion. The goods were transported within a 50 km radius, and as per Rule 138 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, the vehicle number was not mandatory for such short-distance movements.

3. Adequacy of the Adjudicating Authority’s Enquiry:
The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority passed the order without conducting a proper enquiry. The authority did not verify the facts and submissions provided by the appellant, including the certificate from the transport company confirming the receipt of 17 packets.

4. Admission of Liability by the Appellant:
The appellant clarified that they did not admit liability but sought an early release of the goods and vehicle. The adjudicating authority misinterpreted this as an admission of guilt.

5. Appropriateness of the Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice was issued with only one day's notice for the appellant to attend the office, which was deemed insufficient and improper by the appellant.

6. Correctness of Details in the Impugned Order:
The adjudicating authority made errors in the details of the conveyance. The impugned order mentioned incorrect vehicle numbers and failed to accurately reflect the actual conveyance used. This indicated a lack of proper attention and verification by the adjudicating authority.

7. Applicability of Penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The appellant admitted to a technical error in not updating the vehicle number in the E-way bill. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty based on this technical error. However, the movement was within a 50 km radius, making the vehicle number non-mandatory as per Rule 138 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The adjudicating authority did not provide sufficient reasons for the seizure and penalty. The appellate authority found no intention of GST evasion and thus set aside the impugned order. However, a penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the technical error.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. A penalty of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on the appellant under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 for the technical error of not updating the vehicle number in the E-way bill. The adjudicating authority's order lacked proper reasoning and attention to the facts and submissions provided by the appellant.

← Previous Next →