2020 (11) TMI 569 - Commissioner - GST

Detention of goods alongwith the vehicle - absence of E-way Bill - penalty - HELD THAT - 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 at 05.18 PM on 30-11-2018. MOV-01 and MOV-02 were served accordingly. 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-6858 at 05.28 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.18 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. 741043010569 was got generated prior to the commencement of movement of the goods at 04.37 PM which was contained all details i.e. details of the goods, tax invoice number as well as the name of the buyer or 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 05.18 PM, the appellant has explained and I also find that the vehicle of the Driver was carrying the E-way Bill No. 741043010569 in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ14-GF-6858 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. RJ14-GF-6705. 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 05.28 P.M. mentioning therein the Vehicle Registration Number RJ-14-GF-6858. 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 - 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. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

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 evasion of tax liability.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of E-way Bill at the time of interception:
The conveyance carrying goods was intercepted on 30-11-2018 at 05:18 PM, and it was found that the E-way Bill was not available at that time. The E-way Bill was provided at the physical verification stage, showing it was updated at 05:28 PM, ten minutes after the interception. Thus, the vehicle did not have a valid E-way Bill at the time of interception.

2. Compliance with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules:
The appellant argued that the goods were accompanied by a Tax Invoice, E-way Bill, and Consignment Note as prescribed in Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. Despite the initial E-way Bill being generated at 04:37 PM, the vehicle number was updated at 05:28 PM due to a change in the vehicle by the transporter. The adjudicating authority found that the valid E-way Bill was not available at the time of interception, but the appellant contended that the delay was due to a sudden change in the vehicle plan, which was promptly corrected.

3. Allegation of evasion of tax liability:
The appellant argued that there was no contumacious conduct or intention to evade tax, as evidenced by their timely filing of periodical GSTR-1. The delay in updating the vehicle number was a technical breach without any intention to evade tax. The adjudicating authority did not find any evidence of tax evasion, and the appellant's compliance with other statutory requirements was noted.

4. Imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty equal to 100% of the tax amount, which was challenged by the appellant. The appellant cited various case laws and argued that the delay in updating the vehicle number was a technical breach. The appellate authority found that the appellant fulfilled all necessary statutory requirements except for the timely update of the vehicle number. Given the prompt correction of the mistake and the lack of ill intention to evade tax, the appellate authority set aside the impugned order and reduced the penalty to ?15,000 under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. A penalty of ?15,000 was imposed on the appellant under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the technical nature of the breach and the prompt correction of the mistake. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.