9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023. 3. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 9.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 4 and the order dated 17.6.2023 passed by respondent no. 3. 4. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is a registered company having GST No. 27AACCS3376C1ZH and engaged in the business of manufacturing & sale of basic iron and steel etc. In the normal course of business the petitioner dispatched the consignment of 30 ton of non-alloy steel in rolled round to M/s Hi-Tech Gears Limited, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan accompanying Invoice No. 232705612 dated 26.5.2023 as well as E-way Bill No. 281596024395 dated 26.5.2023 through Vehicle No. UP 94 T 6681 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 29.5.2023, the truck was pulled out with the help of crane and after pulling out the vehicle, when the engine could not start as some break down was caused, the driver had immediately contacted to the mechanic on 30.5.2023 and as various spare parts were not available in local market of Lalitpur, he went to Jhansi along with the mechanic for purchase of spare parts and within two days the vehicle could be repaired and thereafter was ready to move for its onward journey, however the same was intercepted in the night of 2/3-6.2023 and show cause notice was issued. 6. He submitted that while replying the show cause notice, the petitioner has annexed the affidavit of truck driver wherein the said incident was categorically mentioned in deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entary evidence at the time of detention. He further submitted that there is violation of the provisions of Rule, therefore, penalty proceeding is justified. He prays for dismissing the writ petition. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the goods in question were moved from Maharastra to Rajasthan via U.P. and the goods in question were accompanying with e-tax invoice, G.R. and e-way bill valid up to 1.6.2023. It has been averred that the vehicle in question was struck in mud on the road side due to heavy load of consignment and with the help of crane the same could be pulled out and thereafter when the vehicle engine could not start the driver contacted the mechanic for remo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not cancelled within 24 hours as provided under the Act. Once the said fact is not disputed and the petitioner has not exercised its right either to withdraw the tax invoice or e-way bill in question, it was well within the knowledge of the department that movement of the goods in question has been undertaken by the petitioner. Merely on the technical ground that e-way bill accompanying with the goods in question was expired on 1.6.2023 whereas the vehicle had been intercepted in the intervening night of 2/3.6.2023. 12. The purpose of e-way bill is that the department should know the movement of goods. Once the e-way bill has been generated and same has not been cancelled by the petitioner within the time prescribed under the Act, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings under section 129 of the CGST Act ought not to have been initiated, but it could be done under section 122 of the CGST Act in the facts & circumstances of the present case. It is also not in dispute that after release of the goods, the same were sold to P.L. Trading Company. 11. Section 129 of the CGST Act deals with detention, seizure and release of goods in case violation of the provisions of the CGST Act is found. Section 130 deals with confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty. Both the sections revolve around a similar issue and provide for the proceedings available at the hands of the proper Officer upon him having found the goods in violation of the provisions of the Act, Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 854/2023, decided on 24.07.2023] has held as under:- "He, however, could not dispute the fact that intention to evade tax is a per-requisite for imposition of penalty under Section 129 of the Act. The E-way Bills being the documents of title to the goods were accompanying the goods hence, the conclusion of the revenue that the petitioner was not the owner of the goods is patently erroneous. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were liable to be initiated under Section 129(1)(a) and not 129(1)(b) as has been done in the present case. In view of the above, expressing our full agreement with the view expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Sahil Traders (Supra) we set aside the impugned penalty order dated 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
