Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + Commissioner GST - 2020 (1) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 1286 - Commissioner - GSTDetention of goods alongwith the vehicle - defective E-way bill - evasion of GST - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellants contention that the demand has been confirmed only on the basis of statement of driver is not correct. In this regard, the adjudicating authority also stated that the e-way Bill was generated intentionally by entering into the type of vehicle as 'ODC' to avail maximum timings to supplement the trips which enables the time of delivery of goods available to the transporter to 31 days in case of 'ODC' cargo as against 7 valid days in case of 'regular cargo'. Thus, the appellant has done this act deliberately and intentionally to evade the GST. Also the cargo departed from Delhi on 12.08 2018 at 11.00 A.M. whereas, the cargo intercepted by the CGST officers on 15.08.2018 at 11.50 A.M. The distance between Delhi and Jhunjhunu is about 220 km which the vehicle can cover in six hours. In this regard, the appellant could not give satisfactory reply as to how the vehicle has taken so much of time in reaching Jhunjhunu from Delhi. Three days is sufficient time for exercising second trip. The nature of the vehicle can not be changed irrespective of the goods loaded into it Any truck/vehicle can be either ODC OR REGULAR CARGO as it has been registered under Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1989. Its nature can not be changed on the basis of goods loaded into the truck - the plea of the appellant that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand on the basis of original trip as second trip which was not supported by any corroborative evidence is also not acceptable. Levy of penalty under Section 122(2)(b) and Section129(1)(a) - HELD THAT:- The penalty is not sustainable in the light of provisions made under Section 129(5) of the CGST' Act, 2017. In view of this provision the appellant has requested to set aside the confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 122 (2) (b) and Section 122 (3) of the Act. The appellant's contention is not acceptable as the transporter has violated the provisions of Section 122 (1) (xiv) for which penalty was imposed upon the transporter M/s Rajdhani Cargo Carriers and not upon the appellant hence appellant's submission that penalty was imposed under Section 122 (2) (b) on them is not correct, The penalty on the driver of the vehicle has been imposed for violation of Section 122 (3) (b) as he was knowing that the goods carried out by him has been removed clandestinely without payment of duty. Appeal dismissed.
|