TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not find mention in the order of demand dated 23.10.2020 or the order dated 31.12.2021, passed by the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is an error in the E-Way Bill inasmuch as it does not reflect the name of the consignee but merely mentions the petitioner s GSTIN number. She submits that the E-Way Bill is required to be read with the two invoices one invoice raised by M/s Mahendra Steels addressed to the petitioner and the second raised by the petitioner in the name of S.K. Integrated Consultants. She contends that if these documents are viewed in conjunction with one another, it would be clear that any error in the documents is only a minor error and the petitioner cannot be pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 020 raising a demand of tax and penalty of a sum of ₹2,78,129/-. 2. The petitioner had appealed the said orders. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority in terms of an order dated 31.12.2021. The petitioner also impugns the said appellate order. 3. The petitioner states that it carries on the business of trading in steel/iron bars as a sole proprietor of a concern named Shri Ram Enterprises. 4. The controversy, in the present case, relates to detention of a consignment of goods intercepted during their transportation. The petitioner states that it had purchased the said consignment of steel from M/s Mahendra Steels (GSTIN 07ABBFM3857D1ZE) and had sold it to M/s S.K. Integrated Consultants (GSTIN 07AA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the reasons for detaining the goods as prima facie, the documents tendered are found to be defective . 9. On the same date (that is, 23.10.2020), an order of demand of tax and penalty was passed raising a demand of ₹2,78,129/- and a penalty of an equivalent amount. 10. The petitioner states that he required the goods urgently and therefore, paid the tax and penalty demanded for securing the release of goods. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority impugning the said demand of tax and the levy of penalty. The said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 31.12.2021. 12. The Appellate Authority found that the order dated 23.10.2020, passed by the proper o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he concerned GST Authorities had not mentioned any specific reason for detaining the goods, raising the demand of tax or for levying penalty, in any of the orders passed by the said Authorities. 14. The notice dated 23.10.2020 merely indicates that the documents tendered are found to be defective; it does not mention any specific defect found by the concerned GST Authorities. 15. The order of tax and demand, which is also dated 23.10.2020, does not specify any reason why the documents accompanying the goods were found to be defective. 16. Further, as is apparent from Paragraph 11 of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, the order which formed the basis for penalising the appellant too does not disclose the discrepancy or mis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner had no option but to pay the amount of tax and penalty as the goods had been detained and the petitioner required their release. 20. We are unable to accept that the order of demand and penalty is a consent order and the petitioner was precluded from challenging the same. The goods had been detained and it is not disputed that the same would not have been released unless the tax and penalty was paid. We are persuaded to accept that the petitioner had paid the tax and penalty for release of the goods and the said payment was not voluntary. 21. As stated above, it is apparent that neither the show cause notice nor the order of demand clearly sets out the reason for imposing the tax liability as well as penalty. 22. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
