Home Case Index All Cases GST GST + Commissioner GST - 2020 (10) TMI Commissioner This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 887 - Commissioner - GSTLevy of tax and penalty - Detention of Goods - allegation that Some material/goods were found without invoice and E-way Bill and the rest of the material were also without valid E-way Bill as the vehicle number was different in the said E-way Bill - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority in impugned order dated 06.12,2018 no where mentioned that how much quantity was without invoice, without E-way bill and further no specific mention has been made in impugned order' about the rest of tree material/goods which was without valid E-way bill, only the adjudicating authority has mentioned in order that the vehicle number is different in the said E-way bill. The adjudicating authority in impugned order in the column Conveyance Number has mentioned RJ-32-GA-8579 whereas in the column details of conveyance detained has been mentioned as R3-14-GF-6858 whereas on perusal of order no such vehicle has been used by the appellant in movement of goods. From the above, it appeared that adjudicating authority while passing the order has not paid proper attention. The e-way bill shall not be valid for movement of goods by road unless the information in Part-B of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished except in the case of movement covered under the third proviso to sub-rule (3) and the proviso to sub-rule (5) - As per N/N.12/2018 dated 07.03.2018 in Rule 138 (3) third proviso which clearly states that where the goods are transported for a distance of upto 50 kms within the State from the place of business of the consignor to the place of transporter for Uther transportation, the supplier or the recipient, as the case may be, the transporter may not furnish the details of conveyance in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01, the appellant was not under an obligation to fill Part-B of the e-way bill, therefore, the appellant has not committed any error of law at the time of downloading e-way bill. There are no intention at the hands of the appellant nor the appellant was supposed to fill up Part-B giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in a vehicle, which is meant for transportation to the same to its transporter. Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle number in Part-B can not be a ground for seizure of the goods. Moreover, there is no loss of revenue. In this case, no reasons are assigned nor any discussion is mentioned in the impugned order of seizure by the adjudicating authority. It is obligatory on the part of adjudicating authority to pass an appropriate reasoned order. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant has submitted copies of both the invoices along with E-way Bills mentioning there in all details in Part A except the corrected vehicle number in Part-B which they himself admitted that they could not change the vehicle number which is a technical error and which was not mandatory because the movement of vehicle was within the 50 Km area. Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number and accompanied the E-way bill with wrong vehicle number along with the goods. They are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017. Appeal allowed in part.
|