9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al-9, Bhavnagar. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under : 4.1. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing of rubber sheet and related products and is registered under the provisions of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the GST Act'). 4.2. On 7th August, 2018, the petitioner issued one Delivery Challan No.0012/18-19 for delivery of its raw material to job worker based in Maharashtra. The goods were being transported in Vehicle No.GJ04X8145 under LR No.282 and E-Way Bill No.631030834459. 4.3. When the goods were being removed for the purpose of job work, the same were intercepted by the respondent No.3 on 08.08.2018 at Vasad at 10:50 PM and statement of the driver was recorded. The respondent No.3 issued the Form GST MOV-01 followed by the order of detention under Section 129(1) of the GST Act in form GST MOV-06 dated 08.08.2018. 4.4. It is the case of the petitioner that as the petitioner was required to transport the goods for job work, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.7,36,490/- on 09.08.2018 to release the goods. The petitioner also filed reply to the show-cause notice which was issued in Form GST MOV-07 on the same day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the petitioner was following the provisions of Section 143 of the GST Act as stated in the objections filed by the petitioner on 09.08.2018 before the respondent No.3. 5.4. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner, under compulsion paid the amount of penalty which was stated in the Form GST MOV-07 issued by the respondent No.3 on 09.08.2018. 5.5. It was therefore submitted that the respondent-Appellate Authority ought to have considered the facts of the case and reduced the penalty amount paid by the petitioner by refunding the excess amount in accordance with law. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Paresh Sheth has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Dynamic Rubbers Pvt. Ltd. versus Deputy Commissioner (AE) CGST reported in (2024) 24 Centax 293 (Guj.) 6.1. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shrunjal Shah for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the respondent-Authorities are bound by the provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the GST Act which prescribes the penalty to be levied at the rate of 200% of the value of the goods for breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules while transporting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Challan for job work dated 07.08.2018 and E-Way Bill was also generated but only Part-B of the E-Way Bill was not generated by the petitioner which stipulates for mentioning of the vehicle number in which the goods were to be transported. 8. The respondent-Authorities have issued the show-cause notice in Form GST MOV-07 fixing the date of hearing on 14.08.2018 and only because the petitioner has paid the entire amount of the penalty as mentioned in the said show-cause notice along with the objections raised in response to the show-cause notice, the respondent-Authorities could not have passed an order by invoking Sub-section (5) of Section 129 of the GST Act ignoring the objections raised by the respondent- Authorities prior to the date of hearing fixed on 14.08.2018 as the respondent No.3 has passed an order in Form GST MOV-09 on 13.08.2018 without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for the same. The Appellate Authority has also not taken into consideration this aspect and dismissed the Appeal by observing as under : "I have given ample opportunities of hearing to both the parties and perused the available record of the case. It appears that there is a contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CBIC, ought to have been resorted wherein, it is observed as under : "3. Section 68 of the CGST Act read with rule 138A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Rules') 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 a 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 section 129 and section 130 of the CGST Act are invocable. Further, it may be noted that the non-furnishing of information in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01 amounts to the e-way bill becoming not a valid document for the movement of goods by road as per Explanation (2) to rule 138(3) of the CGST Rules, except in the case where the goods are transported for a distance of upto fifty kilometres within the State or Union territory to or from the place of business of the transporter to the place of business of the consignor or the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the petitioner has generated Part-A of the E-Way Bill which also contains the GST Number and name of the transporter accompanied by the Delivery Challan for job work stating the vehicle number which is not disputed by the respondent-Authorities, we are of the opinion that the benefit of the Circular No.64/38/2018-GST is required to be given to the petitioner too. However, we are of the opinion that as the petitioner is not falling within any of the situations specified in clauses (a) to (f), the petitioner may be saddled with a penalty of Rs.25,000/- only as the goods (in question) were not liable to tax under the provisions of the GST Act and therefore, we consider the same at par with the exempted goods though technically the tax could be leviable when the goods are returned by the job worker but for the purpose of interpretation of the levy of the penalty, the petitioner is saddled with the penalty of Rs.25,000/- only in the facts of the case. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 13th August, 2018 passed in Form GST MOV-9 is hereby modified by reducing the penalty to Rs.25,000/- only and the respondents are directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
