TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different in the said E-way Bill. 2.2. In view of the above, the impugned goods and the conveyance used for the movement of goods were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act' Act 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the State/Union Territory Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 or under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with sub section (3) of Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing an order of detention in FORM GST MOV 06 and the same was served on the person in charge of the conveyance and owner of the vehicle on 03.12.2018. As the appellant has not objected and refused for any notice and personal hearing in the instant case. M/s Eureka Forbes Limited, 7, Chakraberia Road, (South) Kolkata-700025 as owner of the impugned goods has come forward to pay tax and penalty, claiming the goods in the conveyance. They also provided copy of invoice in which the price of inspected goods has been found. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order. The adjudicating authority apart from confirming the demand of Tax amounting to ₹ 1,18,390/- (CGST amounting to ₹ 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n only one day. (vii) that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order dated 06.12.2018 in which the name of person in-charge has been mentioned as Sh. Nemichand when the appellant company has come forward to present their case. (viii) that the adjudicating authority in impugned order in FORM MOV-09 in the column of Details of conveyance detailed the adjudicating authority has mentioned the name of some other vehicle as RJ 14 GA 6858 whereas no such vehicle has ever been used by the appellant company or their logistics for movement of the goods in question. The goods have been moved in RJ-32-GA-8579 in place of vehicle number RJ 14 GA 9070 but all the entries are fully verifiable and identifiable from the records maintained by the appellant company. Thus the mistake occurred in filling the details of conveyance by the adjudicating authority. The appellant has also submitted various case laws in support of their contention which may be summarised as under: VSL Alloys (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs State of U.P. Another (2018) 30 GST VR 60 (Allahabad HC) dated 13.04.2018 = 2018 (5) TMI 455 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . Bhumika Enterprises Vs State of U.P. Writ Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and vaccume cleaner through their logistics firm i.e. M/s Yusen Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd SP 636 (A-2) Road No.6, VKI Area, Jaipur-302013 who handles the logistics and generally despatches the goods to transport company i.e. M/s Asian pacific Cargo which is situated at Bani Park, Jaipur the distance between logistic firm and transporter is less than in the radius of 50 Kilometer for further transportation the goods in all over the State at their end, through vehicle i.e. Pickup RJ 14 GA 9070 after generating the e-way bill with regard to goods in movement. On 30.11.2018 their logistics firm i.e. M/s Yusen Logistics (India) Pvt Ltd SP 636 (A-2) Road No.6, VKI Area, Jaipur-302013 who handles the logistics work of M/s Eureka Forbes Limited prepared two invoices as per below mentioned detail for dispatching of goods to transport company i.e. M/s Asian pacific Cargo which is situated at Bani Park, Jaipur for further transportation of goods for end destination. Invoice No. Date E way Bill No. No. of packages No. of vehicle 272270007121 30.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter for further transportation of goods, then the vehicle number is not mandatory. As per Rule 138 of the CGST Rules, 2017- Information to be furnished prior to commencement of movement of goods and generation of e-way bill (1) Every registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment value exceeding fifty thousand rupees- (i) in relation to a supply; or (ii) for reasons other than supply; or (iii) due to inward supply from an unregistered person, shall, before commencement of such movement, furnish information relating to the said goods as specified in Part A of Form GST EWB-01, electronically, on the common portal along with such other information as may be required on the common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal: Provided further that where the goods to be transported are supplied through an e-commerce operator or a courier agency, on an authorization received from the consignor, the information in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 may be furnished by such e-commerce operator or courier agency and a unique number will be generated on the said portal: (2) Where the goods are transported by the registered person as a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of downloading e-way bill. Thus I am in full agreement with the submission of appellant and after perusal of the relevant document, I find 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. 9. In the instant case before me, 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 admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
