9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner had sold electrical goods worth Rs. 33,82,363/-, vide Invoice nos. 109237/DSI, dated 24/10/2018, 109238/DSI dated 24/10/2018 & 109239/DSI dated 24/10/2018 to M/s. Setia Electricals India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram and Rs. 3,38,037/- vide invoice no. 109243/DSI dated 24/10/2018 to Rameshwar Traders, Gurugram. 3. On 26/10/2018, when the goods were being transported from Delhi to Gurugram, the truck carrying the goods was intercepted by the road side checking squad of the state tax enforcement, Gurugram and the AC mobile squad, Haryana state GST seized the goods on the ground that Part B of the four E-Way Bills accompanying the goods were not duly completed. 4. The regular employee in-charge of E-Way Bill generation was on leave and the standby ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (P-4). Hence the present writ petition 9. On notice of the petition, a written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 stating therein that it is a case of gross violation of Section 68 of CGST/HGST Act read with Rule 138-A of CGST/HGST Rules, 2017 which requires that the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding Rs. 50,000/- should carry a copy of documents viz invoice/bill of supply/delivery challan/bill of entry and valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification. In case such person does not carry the mentioned documents, there is no doubt that a contravention of the provisions of the law takes place and the provisions of non-furnishing of information in part-B of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 25.10.2018 and 731037090918 dated 25.10.2018 were not entered/completed. But the driver of the vehicle thereafter filled Part B in the presence of Officer. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellant had violation the provisions of Section 68 of the Act ibid and Rule 138 of the Rules framed thereunder. Neither the transporter nor appellant supplier of the goods uploaded/completed Part B of the E way bill as required under Section 68(3) of the Act, 2017 and Rule 138 (1), (2), (3) of the Rules, 2017. As per Rule 138 of the Rules ibid, consignor, consignee or transporter can upload E-way bill Part A and Part B. However, the circular dated 14.09.2018 has not been disputed. 13. Heard. 14. Referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. Accordingly, proceedings under Section 129 of HGST/CGST Act should not have been initiated, as per circular dated 14.09.2018 (P-6). The object of circular dated 14.09.2018 was that in case of circumstances as detailed in the circular, which were procedural in nature and there no intention of misleading the transfer of goods, the proceedings should not have been initiated under Section 129 of HGST/CGST Act. Apart from not mentioning number of the vehicle in Part B, all the other documents have been shown by the driver of the vehicle. 17. In view of the above fact, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 09.01.2020 (P-5) is set aside. A penalty of Rs. 500/- is imposed upon the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
