9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 888 - Commissioner - GSTRelease of Confiscated Goods - Department had made the case against the appellant on the ground that the Valid E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception - Penalty - HELD THAT - The person in charge of the vehicle provided an e-way bill at the physical verification stage. After verification it was found that the said e-way bill updated with the conveyance No. RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.19 PM i.e. time of interception and cleared impugned goods without e way bill and the person-in-charge of the vehicle provided an E-way Bill at the physical verification stage. The E- way- Bill No.731043011329 was got generated prior to the commencement of movement of the goods at 04.38 PM which was contained all details i.e. details of the goods, tax invoice number as well as the name of the buyer of the goods including his registration number under the GST Act; and the transport receipt of the transporter and packing list was also accompanying the goods. In so far as E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM, the appellant has explained and I also find that the vehicle of the Driver was carrying the E-way Bill No.731043011329 in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ14-GF-9189 in place of vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831 due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter,' the transporter has placed another vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GF-6831 in place of Registration No. RJ-14-GF-9189. As soon as the mistake came to the notice of the appellant the same mistake was rectified by the appellant and got generated the E-Way Bill at 05.19 mentioning therein the vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831 - thus, all the necessary statutory requirement under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules was fulfilled by the appellant except mentioning corrected vehicle number at the time of interception, though this mistake was corrected soon after it came to notice. Thus, there appears no ill intention to evade the tax and just mere technical mistake. Penalty - HELD THAT - Though the appellant has made a error in mentioning the vehicle number they himself admitted that due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter they could not change the vehicle number. Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number. Therefore, they are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Penalty upheld. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of E-way Bill at the time of interception. 2. Compliance with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules. 3. Allegation of tax evasion and imposition of penalty. 4. Technical errors and their impact on the validity of E-way Bill. 5. Legal precedents and case laws cited by the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of E-way Bill at the Time of Interception: The primary issue was whether the conveyance had a valid E-way Bill at the time of interception. The vehicle was intercepted at 05.19 PM on 30.11.2018, and it was found that the E-way Bill was updated with the conveyance number RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM, post-interception. This discrepancy led to the detention of goods under Section 129 of the CGST Act. 2. Compliance with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules: The appellant argued that the goods were moved under a duly generated E-way Bill before the movement of goods at 4.38 PM. Despite the initial E-way Bill reflecting an incorrect vehicle number (RJ14-GF-9189), the appellant updated the vehicle number to RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM. The adjudicating authority initially found non-compliance with Rule 138, as the valid E-way Bill was not presented at the time of interception. 3. Allegation of Tax Evasion and Imposition of Penalty: The appellant contended that there was no intention to evade tax, as evidenced by timely filing of periodical GSTR-1. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty equal to 100% of the tax amount, which was contested by the appellant. The appellant argued that the delay in updating the vehicle number was a technical breach and did not merit such a severe penalty. 4. Technical Errors and Their Impact on the Validity of E-way Bill: The appellant explained that the vehicle number was updated due to a last-minute change by the transporter. The E-way Bill portal was updated within half an hour from the time of dispatch. The adjudicating authority's assertion that the E-way Bill was invalid at the time of interception was challenged, emphasizing that the error was promptly corrected. 5. Legal Precedents and Case Laws Cited by the Appellant: The appellant cited various case laws to support their contention, including decisions from the Allahabad High Court and a Board Circular. These precedents emphasized that minor errors should not lead to severe penalties if there was no intention to evade tax. Judgment: The appellate authority carefully reviewed the case records and submissions. It was noted that the E-way Bill was generated prior to the commencement of movement, containing all necessary details except the correct vehicle number. The error was rectified soon after interception. The authority found no ill intention to evade tax, considering it a mere technical mistake. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. However, a penalty of ?10,000 was imposed under Section 125 of the CGST Act for the technical error. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
