9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is found that in the E-way Bill the address, has been shown as Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj Kishangarh, Rajasthan. The distance of Kishangarh is more than 50 Kilometer from Jaipur. As per Rule 138(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Where the goods are transferred from one conveyance to another, the consignor or the recipient, who has provided information in Part-A of the FORM GST EWB-01, or the transporter shall, before such transfer and further movement of goods, update the details of conveyance in the E-way Bill on the common portal in Part-B of FORM GST EWB-01. Further, as per Notification 12/2018-C.T., dated 7-3-2018 while transporting the goods from the place of transporter to the place of the consignee for more than 50 kilometer the part-B of E-way Bill has to be updated with the actual vehicle number. But the appellant has failed to do so. It is also found that in fact, the goods were found loaded in vehicle No. RJ 14 GE 4146 whereas, in Part-B of GST EWB-01 the vehicle number was mentioned as RJ 19 GF 0560. Therefore the driver of the vehicle was not carrying a valid E-way Bill at the time of interception of the vehicle. Thus, the appellant s contention is not acceptable. The E-wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso issued and duly served on the person-in-charge of the conveyance and M/s. Prerna Export, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Rajasthan-305801, the owner of the impugned goods having GSTIN-08ACAPS7632J1ZA. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned Order No. 04/E-Way Bill/CGST Div-B/2018-19/1315 in FORM GST MOV-09, dated 8-6-2019. The adjudicating authority apart from confirming the demand of Tax amounting to ₹ 1,12,488/- (IGST amounting to ₹ 1,12,488/-) also imposed and confirmed penalty equal to one hundred percent of the Tax amounting to ₹ 1,12,488/-. The owner of the goods i.e. M/s. Prerna Export, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Rajasthan-305801 has deposited the Tax (IGST @ 18% ₹ 1,12,488/- and penalty equal to 100% tax vide Challan No. CPIN 19060800029049, dated 8-6-2019 and debited the same vide GST DRC-03 with debit Entry No. DC0806190020618. 3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed the appeal on various grounds which are summarized as under : that the impugned order is bad in law, against the provisions of RGST CGST Act, 2017 and against the principles of natural justice, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thus the entire impugned order is wrong and unjustified in these facts and circumstances of the case. that the appellant has not admitted his liability rather for an early release of the goods and vehicle he deposited the proposed tax and penalty because the proper officer was not even ready to hear him. Thus the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice. that the show cause notice No. 1314, dated 7-6-2019 proposing therein to attend the office of the Learned Proper Office on 11-6-2019 is not a proper notice in view of the principles of natural justice as the opportunity of being heard has been given only of five days which is not proper and justified. Again the principles of natural justice have been violated in issuing the notice which is not sufficient in the eyes of law. that the impugned order in Form GST MOV-09 has been passed on 8-6-2019 in which the name of the person in charge has been mentioned as Shri Mukesh Kumar Saini . When the appellant has come forward to present his case, then passing of the impugned order in the name of the person-in-charge is wrong and illegal. that the Learned Proper Officer has forced the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d judicially. A penalty will ordinarily be imposed in case where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, but not in cases where there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable under the Act. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of quasi-judicial proceedings. Penalty will not be ordinarily imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not be imposed merely because It is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the Authority is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the Authority will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the Actor where breach flows from a bona fide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the Statute. Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa - (1970) 25 STC 211 (Supreme Court) = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J159) (S.C.) I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing. They explained the case in detail and reiterated the submission made in their appeal memorandum and submitted additional written submission requested to decide the case on the basis of documents and submission made by them. 5. I have carefully gone through the case records and detail submissions made by the appellant in their appeal memorandum as well as additional written submissions submitted at the time of personal hearing held on 25-2-2020. 6. I find that M/s. Prerna Export, Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Rajasthan has imported the goods ABRASIVES from China. During the course of verification of vehicle No. RJ14-GE-4146 by the officers of CGST Division, B, Jaipur the E-way Bill Number 721075239264, dated 4-6-2019 of Part-A of E-way Bill was having the shipping address Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Rajasthan-305801 whereas, in Part-B of E-Way Bill the vehicle Number was shown different as RJ-19-GF-0560. Thus it is clear that the E-way Bill found during verification was not valid/proper for movement of vehicle. 7. As per Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017 (1) Every registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment value e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecipient and the transporter on the common portal. (5) Where the goods are transferred from one conveyance to another, the consignor or the recipient, who has provided Information in Part A of the FORM GST EWB-01, or the transporter shall, before such transfer and further movement of goods, update the details of conveyance in the E-way Bill on the common portal in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01. Thus I find that driver of the vehicle was compulsorily required to carry a valid E way Bill. 8. Further, I find that the appellant has contended that when the goods reached to Jaipur, the goods were being carried in another Vehicle Number RJ 14 GE 4146 to their office at Bani Park, Jaipur from the location of the local transporter, which is the distance upto 50 kilometers. But I find that in the E-way Bill the address, has been shown as Shivaji Nagar, Madanganj Kishangarh, Rajasthan. The distance of Kishangarh is more than 50 Kilometer from Jaipur. As per Rule 138(5) of CGST Rules, 2017 - Where the goods are transferred from one conveyance to another, the consignor or the recipient, who has provided information in Part-A of the FORM GST EWB-01, or the transporter shall, before such transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
