9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GST Act, 2017 having principal place of business at Jaipur and procures the finished goods from its branches/warehouses located in various other States on stock transfer basis and subsequently sells the same within the State of Rajasthan. Neither the appellant nor the transporter have taken the necessary measures or precautions to ensure extension of validity of the E-way bill or generation of an alternate valid one in terms of Rule 138(10) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and chose to transport the goods on the old E-way bill which was not a valid document. Therefore, appellant s contention that the delivery of the impugned goods was delayed on account of shortage of space at the recipient s warehouse, during which time the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2018 at 18:30 Hrs. conveyance bearing No. RJ14 GK 1082 was intercepted in movement at Sudarshanpura Industrial Area, Jaipur by the Officers of CGST Division-H, Jaipur. The goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the State/Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancies were found :- E-way bill got expired (Not valid for movement). 2.2. In view of the above, the impugned goods and the conveyance used for the movement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) that the consignment was supported by appropriate documents and proof of payment of tax. (iii) that no penalty is to be imposed in the absence of any mala fide intent for evasion of taxes on the part of company. The appellant has also submitted various case laws in support of their contention which may be summarised as under : Calcutta High Court in CAL-COX Syndicate (P) Limited v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [2010] 31 VST 563. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - 1970 [25 STC 211 SC = 1978 (2) E.L.T. J159 (S.C.(]. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa - (1978) (2) E.L.T. J159 (S.C.) and Akbar Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (47) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 4. Personal hearing in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices Tax Rules, 2017, read as follows :- Rule 138 . (10) - An e-way bill or a consolidated e-way bill generated under this rule shall be valid for the period as mentioned in Column (3) of the Table below from the relevant date, for the distance, within the country, the goods have to be transported, as mentioned in column (2) of the said Table :- Sl. No. Distance Validity Period (1) (2) (3) 1. Up to 100 Km. One day in cases other than Over dimensional cargo. 2. For every 100 Km. or part thereof thereafter One additional da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2017 and chose to transport the goods on the old E-way bill which was not a valid document. Therefore, appellant s contention that the delivery of the impugned goods was delayed on account of shortage of space at the recipient s warehouse, during which time the E-way bill expired and the e-way bill portal does not allow them raising of multiple e-way bills for same tax invoice is not acceptable. Further, I find that the appellant has taken a plea that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers. In this regard, I have gone through all the related documents submitted by the appellant which can prove the co-relation between the distance of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
