Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (9) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T/2020 has been allowed. The said appeal is stated to have been preferred by the respondents against the Order-in-Original dated 24.04.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-I, Lucknow whereby the claim of the respondents was rejected. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents moved an application seeking refund of the CGST through their application dated 20.02.2020 claiming an amount of Rs.1,84,17,252/- on the tax paid inputs of the Goods, which was ultimately exported by the respondents. It is claimed that after verifying the claims, prima-facie an acknowledgment was issued to the respondents and a provisional order dated 04.03.2020 allowing partial refund amounting to Rs.1,65,75,526.80 was g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as per the E-way Bill Rules contained in Chapter XVI of the CGST Rules 2017, the information was required to be furnished prior to the commencement of the movement of the goods and generation of e-way bill by the registered person, which has not been done. This fact was revealed to the department on the scrutinizing of GSTR-2A return filed by the respondents. It was further alleged that all theses three suppliers named above had done huge volume of business in a very short span of time and subsequently their registration was canceled. The respondents were called upon to show cause and to produce the invoices raised by the said suppliers / taxpayers and e-way bills generated in the process so as to ascertain if the goods were indeed receive .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7. (iv). I confirm the interest on the above points (ii) and (iii) under Section 50 read with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with the IGST Act, 2017. (v). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, read with the IGST Act, 2017. (vi). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(viii) of the CGST Act, 2017 for obtaining refund fraudulently, read with the IGST Act, 2017. (vii). I impose the penalty amounting to Rs.79,60,365/- under Section 122 (1)(xiv) of the CGST Act, 2017 for transporting taxable goods without the cover of specified documents i.e. e-way bill, read with the IGST Act, 2017." The respondents aggrieved against the said order preferred an ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the appellate tribunal has not been created as prescribed under the statute and the petitioner cannot be left remedy-less in the absence of creation of the statutory tribunal. Sri K. D. Nag appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that in view of the averments as made in the memo of the appeal, the respondents admit that the goods were transported from Surat to ICD Panki Kanpur for its further export without the e-way bills and in view of the statement as contained in the memo of appeal, the appellate authority has erred in allowing the appeal. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, a supplementary affidavit was filed duly sworn by one Sri Rakesh Srivastav wherein he had specifically stated that no e-way bills were ever annexed wit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the department should be careful in future in filing such affidavit. Coming to the facts leading to the present case, the show cause notice as issued to the petitioner had made three precise allegations that the supplier of the goods to the respondents had supplied the goods without generation of the e-way bills which was contrary to the E-Way Bill Rules and thus, the claim of the respondents was liable to be rejected. That being the nature of the allegations levelled in the show cause notice, the submission of Sri K. D. Nag that the goods sent from Surat to Kanpur for export did not carry e-way bills as admitted by the respondents in their memo of appeal, cannot be accepted as it is well settled that the allegations as levelled in t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates