Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + Commissioner GST - 2020 (3) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 1298 - Commissioner - GSTDetention of goods alongwith conveyance - E-way bill got expired - imposition of IGST Tax and penalty - HELD THAT:- M/s. Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd., Punjab is engaged in direct selling of its products through its large network of distributors dispatched the goods to the appellant i.e. M/s. Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd., Rajasthan C/o. Jayem Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., E-734, Nakulpath, Lal Kothi Scheme, Near Vidhansabha and Jyoti Nagar Police Station, Jaipur-302015, the owner of the goods is a dealer under the provisions of CGST and RGST Act, 2017 having principal place of business at Jaipur and procures the finished goods from its branches/warehouses located in various other States on stock transfer basis and subsequently sells the same within the State of Rajasthan. Neither the appellant nor the transporter have taken the necessary measures or precautions to ensure extension of validity of the E-way bill or generation of an alternate valid one in terms of Rule 138(10) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and chose to transport the goods on the old E-way bill which was not a valid document. Therefore, appellant’s contention that the delivery of the impugned goods was delayed on account of shortage of space at the recipient’s warehouse, during which time the E-way bill expired and the e-way bill portal does not allow them raising of multiple e-way bills for same tax invoice is not acceptable - the appellant has taken a plea that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers. The appellant could not prove with documentary evidence their stand that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers. Therefore, detention/seizure of goods and vehicle and initiation of penal proceedings cannot be faulted - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|