9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner. Once the goods were seized and the petitioner, after inquiring the fact from the purchaser about the attending fact which led to cancellation of e way bill by the purchaser, it was communicated to the respondents, but not being satisfied, the goods were detained and the seizure order was passed. For invoking the proceeding under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, section 130 of the CGST Act was required to be read together, where the intent to evade payment of tax is mandatory, but while issuing notice or while passing the order of detention, seizure or demand of penalty, tax, no such intent of the petitioner was observed. Once the dealer has intimated the attending and mediating circumstances under which e-way bill of the purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5,51,602/- on the petitioner. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having GSTIN No. 19AAECS9421J1ZZ having its registered Office at 2nd Floor, 5 SS Chamber, Chittaranjan Avenue, Jamuria, West Bengal and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial grade steel components, i.e., channel, beams, etc. The petitioner through tax invoice dated 17.11.2021 transported 4 MT, 10.800 MT and 6.970 MT of steel channels of different dimensions and 4 MT each of steel beams of different dimensions to M/s Maa Ambey Steels. The said goods were accompanied with tax invoices, e-way bill and GR's. The goods were intercepted on 19.11.2021 at Maharajpur, Kanpur and on verification, it was found that e-way bill no. 8211 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was intercepted by the respondent no. 3 and the driver of the truck provided all documents, i.e., tax invoice, e-way bill, consignment note, etc. On intimation that the e-way bill, which was accompanying the goods have already been cancelled by the purchaser itself, the petitioner inquired and got to know as to why the recipient has cancelled the e-way bill due to certain discrepancies in the valuation of goods and the said factum was informed to the respondents authorities, but the respondent no. 3 passed the detention order on 22.11.2021 with the remark that e-way bill was not OK, but no observation with regard to intention to evade payment of tax was made against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted its response. Not being satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) Others Vs. M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Private Limited Another [SLP (C) No. 21132/2021, decided on 12.01.2022]. He prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders by submitting that at the time of interception, the e-way bill was cancelled by the purchaser and the petitioner has failed to bring on record any other e-way bill showing accompanying the goods. Once the dealer has failed to show genuine e-way bill accompanying the goods, the proceedings cannot be said to be illegal. He further submits that the petitioner was well aware of the fact that the e-way bill has been cancelled by the purchaser and therefore, he ought to have generated ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied, the goods were detained and the seizure order was passed. While issuing notice or seizing or passing the demand order under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, no observation had been made with regard to intent to evade payment of tax. Section 68 of the CGST Act requires the person in-charge of the vehicle carrying certain documents accompanying the consignment of goods above Rs. 50,000/- such as, tax invoice and e-way bill. On inspection of the vehicle, eway bill of the purchaser was not found OK and therefore, proceedings have been initiated under section 129(3) of the CGST Act. 10. For invoking the proceeding under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, section 130 of the CGST Act was required to be read together, where the intent to evade pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, it would sufice to state that the legislation makes intent to evade tax a sine qua non for initiation of the proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. 12. This aspect is no more res integra and the same stands finalized in the judgement of the Apex Court in M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Private Limited (supra); wherein, it has been categorically stated that:- As notices hereinabove, on the facts of this case, it has precisely been found that there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioners to evade tax and rather, the goods in question could not be taken to the destination within time for the reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioners. 13. Recently, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 600 of 2022 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
