TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Taxes Excise-Cum proper officer Paonta Circle-Il is set aside. The additional demand of ₹ 57,708/- deposited by the appellant may be refunded and the penalty of ₹ 500/- under SGST and ₹ 500/- under CGST u/s. 125 of CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 is imposed on the Appellant in accordance to CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, dated 14th Sep., 2018 and the state Circular No. 12-25/2018-19-EXN-GST-(575)6009-6026, dated 13th March, 2019. The judgment in this case was reserved on 21-1-2020 and is released. - Appeal No. 010/2019, Endst. No. EXN-010/2019-AA/ GST Shimia HP-3147-52 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2020 - Shri Rohit Chauhan, Additional Commissioner of State Taxes Excise (GR-I)-cum-Appe ll ate Authority GST (Appeals) Shri Surender Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sandeep Attri, ACST E-cum-Proper Officer, for the Respondent. ORDER At the outset, I would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as HPGST and CGST Act respectively) are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2018 are being enclosed in which it was mentioned that the penalty cannot be imposed in the following situations :- (a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; (b) Error in the pin-code put the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN Code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the E-way Bill; (c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct; (d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the E-way Bill; (e) Error in 4 or 6-digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate of tax mentioned is correct; (f) Error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number; Relief claim : The order of the ACST E may kindly be quashed. Any other relief the court may deem fit. Para-wise reply from Respondent : (i) Content in para one is not admitted as order issued by respondent is proper and lawful in nature. (ii) Speaking order was issued to the Appellant vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty as was order was under the GST Act, 2017. However, by correlating the principle of mens rea with the order passed by the respondent and honoring the law of nature and spirit of appeal. Respondent respectfully wish to submit that :- This case has not only because of clerical mistake mens rea and actus rea are two important terms in criminal law in the western world. The terms are taken from the Latin sentence 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' means an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty, mens rea refers to intention, while the actus rea refers to an action. . And this case is of actus rea not of mens rea . Respondent also wish to submit following to prove the actus rea in this case which will prove that this case is a clear cut case of tax evasion and misleading the tax authorities. It was a planed game of the appellant and same is proven as:- (i) If vehicle number was written wrong in E-way Bill and rightly on invoice issued by the appellant, such case might fall under the category of clerical mistake. But it was a planed case, as appellant cleverly mentioned wrong vehicle in invoice as well as in E-wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tside the State. The appellant has imported paper boards from M/s. B.S.J. Papers Pvt. Ltd., Rohini Delhi vide tax Invoice No. BSJ / 2018-19/6329, dated 2-12-2018 under the cover of E-way Bill No. 761043333897 generated on 3:16 p.m. dated 2-12-2018 valid up to 6-12-2018. On dated 4-12-2018 the Vehicle No. HP17B-4290 was intercepted at Behral by the Proper Officer and driver was asked to produce documents related to goods loaded in the vehicle. The Proper Officer found that the Vehicle No. HP17B-1790 as mentioned in the invoice and E-way Bill does not match with Vehicle No. HP17B-4290 which was intercepted, therefore, he started proceedings u/s. 129(1) and imposed a tax/penalty of ₹ 57,708/- under Section 129(3) of the CGST /HPGST Act, 2017. 7. I have heard both the parties and also have perused the record available of the case and it is revealed that due to a typographic error by the consignee while issuing tax invoice and generating E-way Bill, the Vehicle No. HP-17B1790 has been mentioned instead of the Vehicle No. HP-17B-4290 on both tax invoice and as well as in E-way Bill. Apart from this there is no dispute on quantity/quality of goods in question and validity of E-w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
