9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj) which is completely off route and also without any valid/legal documents and thus violated the provisions of CGST Act and Rules, 2017. The driver of the goods stated that goods were to be off loaded after contacting at mobile No.9782703374. I do not agree with the contention of the appellant that there was subsequent transit sale. I find that if there was subsequent transit sale in movement of goods to Beawar, Ajmer as all parties must have entered into an agreement for transit sale' and execution must be according to agreement. Moreover, a subsequent invoice/E way Bill should have been generated in favour of the appellant for transit sale before interception. But in the instant case there is neither agreement between appellant and other suppliers of goods nor any subsequent invoice/E way Bill are generated before interception. Therefore, it is clearly an afterthought and also in the eyes of law it is not subsequent 'transit sale'. The case laws relied upon by the appellant in their support is squarely not applicable in the instant case. It is absolute clear that the impugned goods in question were not accompanied with any valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2 The goods and conveyance used for movement of goods were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of CGST, Act 2017 read with sub section (3) of Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing an order of Detention in FORM GST MOV-06 and the same was served on the person incharge of the conveyance Shri Shakti Singh on 15.11.2019. 2.3 Further, Sh. Prateek Garg, Partner of M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Rerolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (GSTIN No.08AAFFM2476HIZ5) has claimed the ownership of goods loaded in the vehicle No. RJ 14-1G-7711 and also agreed to deposit the taxes and penalty applicable as per law. Accordingly, a notice in FORM-07 dated 16.11.2019 was issued and duly served to M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj) as well as Shri Shakti Singh, Driver/person In-charge of conveyance bearing No. RJ 14-1G-7711 providing them an opportunity to show cause against the demand of tax and penalty as applicable and make payment of the same and to get the goods released. 3. Further, the adjudicating authority vide impugned Order No.07/CGST/Div-J/Ajmer/2019/8996 dated 05.12.2019 vide FORM GST MO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aipur second is purchaser of Udaipur party i.e. Jaitaren dealer third we the last purchaser from Jaitran Party with Complete Tax Invoice /or E-way. As such at the time of Inspection of vehicle there was proper tax Invoice GR E-way Bill, who Inade subsequent sale in transit to us by issuance of tax Invoice E-way bill shown to AA immediately within 1 hour during the period of Inspection without taking the vehicle inside the factory premises for delivery of Goods for waiting of E-way bill tax Invoice. that the AA Considered the transit Completely off route E-way bill as no valid E-way bill because of issued in the name of Jaitanan party which was also not affected the tax liability because of full tax i.e. SGST CGST as applicable were charged by the consignee firm of Rajasthan Consignee firm of Rajasthan all the three parties involved in three transactions of sale are duly registered dealer having GST number as shown in detailed reply. There was no evasion of any tax liability hence the AA not proved any evasion of tax in this transit by his enquiry. The following case law cited in their defence: Kerala High Court in (2019) 4 GST Update page 93- Held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an dealer third we the last purchaser from Jaitran Party with Complete Tax Invoice and E-way Bill. Now the issue to be decided whether the Driver of the vehicle in movement was having the valid document at the time of interception or otherwise. 8. As per Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (1) Every registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees (i) in relation to a supply; or (ii) for reasons other than supply; or (iii) due to inward supply from an unregistered person, shall, before commencement of such movement, furnish information relating to the said goods as specified in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01, electronically, on the common portal along with such other information as may be required on the common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal Provided that the transporter, on an authorization received from the registered person, may furnish information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01*, electronically, on the common portal along with such other information as may be required on the common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal 9. Further as per Rule 138A (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant i.e. M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj) which is completely off route and also without any valid/legal documents and thus violated the provisions of CGST Act and Rules, 2017. The driver of the goods stated that goods were to be off loaded after contacting at mobile No. 9782703374 Sh.Shrawan at the defined address of M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer. Further, it is also evident from the timing of generation of the second E way Bill No. 771103594733 dated 15.11.2019 which is generated at 12.33 PM after interception of conveyance by the officers in the name of appellant. 11. I do not agree with the contention of the appellant that there was subsequent transit sale. I find that if there was subsequent transit sale in movement of goods to Beawar, Ajmer as all parties must have entered into an agreement for transit sale' and execution must be according to agreement. Moreover, a subsequent invoice/E way Bill should have been generated in favour of the appellant for transit sale before interception. But in the instant case there is neither agreement between appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
