Refund of unutilized input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure - interpretation of the term "inputs" for refund under Section 54(3) - Net ITC under Rule 89(5) and its application in computing maximum refund - exclusion of input services and capital goods from refund of inverted duty credit - re-credit to electronic credit ledger under Rule 93 - reliance on administrative clarification in Circular No.79/53/2018-GSTRefund of unutilized input tax credit on account of inverted duty structure - Maximum Refund Amount formula in Rule 89(5) - Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of accumulated ITC claimed for November-2017 on account of an inverted tax structure. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority upheld the adjudicating authority's finding that the accumulated input tax credit was not attributable to an inverted tax structure because major inputs and the final product attracted the same rate of GST (5%), save for certain consumables. Applying the formula in Rule 89(5), Net ITC covers ITC availed on all inputs in the relevant period irrespective of differing tax rates on particular inward supplies. Refund under Section 54(3)(ii) is available only where credit has accumulated on account of the rate of tax on inputs being higher than the rate on output supplies; where the predominant tax incidence on major inputs equals that on outputs, accumulation on account of inverted structure is not established. The adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund claim was thus affirmed. [Paras 5, 6]Appeal rejected to the extent of claim for refund of unutilized ITC for November-2017; appellant not entitled to the refund on the stated grounds.Interpretation of the term "inputs" for refund under Section 54(3) - exclusion of input services and capital goods from refund of inverted duty credit - Net ITC under Rule 89(5) and Notifications aligning Rules with Act - Whether 'inputs' under Section 54(3) includes input services and capital goods such that tax paid on them is refundable as part of inverted duty credit. - HELD THAT: - The authority followed the statutory definition and administrative guidance that 'inputs' for the purpose of refund of accumulated ITC due to inverted duty structure do not include input services or capital goods. The notifications amending the definition of Net ITC and paragraph 14 of Circular No.79/53/2018-GST were applied to construe Net ITC in Rule 89(5) as limited to input tax credit on inputs (excluding input services and capital goods) for the relevant period. The appellant's contention that 'inputs' should be read broadly to include services and capital goods was rejected as legally unsustainable. Reliance placed on pre-amendment interpretations was held not to assist the appellant in the facts of this case. [Paras 5, 6]Refund does not extend to tax paid on input services or capital goods; Net ITC for computing refund excludes those items.Reliance on administrative clarification in Circular No.79/53/2018-GST - Whether the Circular No.79/53/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 and related notifications could be relied upon to deny the appellant's refund claim. - HELD THAT: - The authority accepted and applied the Circular's clarification that Section 54(3) contemplates refund only in respect of inputs as defined and that the rules were aligned by notification to exclude input services and capital goods from Net ITC for refund computation. The adjudicating authority's reliance on the Circular and notifications to interpret Section 54(3) and Rule 89(5) was considered appropriate and consistent with the Act and Rules. [Paras 5, 6]The administrative clarification and notifications were correctly applied to deny the refund claim insofar as it sought tax on input services and capital goods.Re-credit to electronic credit ledger under Rule 93 - Procedure for re-crediting the amount debited for the refund claim back to the appellant's electronic credit ledger upon rejection of the refund. - HELD THAT: - The order records that where a refund claim is rejected in whole or in part under Rule 92, the amount debited shall be re-credited to the electronic credit ledger by an order in FORM GST PMT-03 as provided in Rule 93. The appellant was directed to approach the adjudicating authority and follow the procedure laid down under Rule 93 for re-crediting the rejected amount. [Paras 6, 7]Appellant may seek re-credit of the debited amount to its electronic credit ledger by following the procedure under Rule 93 before the adjudicating authority.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed insofar as refund of accumulated ITC for November-2017 is concerned: the authorities correctly applied Section 54(3), Rule 89(5), the notifications and Circular No.79 to hold that the appellant did not demonstrate accumulation due to an inverted tax structure and that tax on input services and capital goods is not refundable; the appellant may pursue re-credit of the debited amount under Rule 93 before the adjudicating authority.

Jurisdiction of appellate authority - forum competence between CGST and SGST authorities - bar on entertaining appeals before wrong GST forum - appeal filed before wrong forum - dismissal for lack of jurisdictionJurisdiction of appellate authority - forum competence between CGST and SGST authorities - bar on entertaining appeals before wrong GST forum - Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the State Tax Officer, Circle-III, Bhilwara. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority examined the record and the submissions and found that the impugned order was passed by an officer of the State Tax (SGST) department. The appeal was presented before the Commissioner (Appeals) under CGST at Jaipur, which is not the forum competent to decide appeals against orders passed by a State Tax Officer. The authority relied on the statutory scheme that prevents cross-vesting of appellate or rectification proceedings between CGST and SGST/UTGST authorities (noting that Section 6(3) of the CGST Act precludes proceedings under one Act before officers appointed under the other and that corresponding provisions exist in the SGST/UTGST legislation). In view of this bar and the appellant's own admission that the appeal was filed before the wrong appellate forum, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal and therefore could not entertain it on merits. [Paras 5]Appeal dismissed for being filed before a forum lacking jurisdiction; appellant to approach the jurisdictional SGST appellate authority.Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Jaipur for want of jurisdiction because the impugned order was passed by a State Tax Officer and the appeal must be pursued before the competent SGST appellate authority.

Valid e-way bill and its physical availability at time of interception - detention of goods under Section 129 for non furnishing of prescribed documents - technical/clerical error in Part B (vehicle details) of the e way bill - Explanation (2) to Rule 138(3) - effect of non furnishing of Part B on validity of e way bill - penalty under Section 125 for failure to produce/document required particulars - absence of tax evasion as determinative of enforcement actionValid e-way bill and its physical availability at time of interception - detention of goods under Section 129 for non furnishing of prescribed documents - Explanation (2) to Rule 138(3) - effect of non furnishing of Part B on validity of e way bill - technical/clerical error in Part B (vehicle details) of the e way bill - absence of tax evasion as determinative of enforcement action - Whether detention of the goods and conveyance was justified because a valid e way bill was not available with the vehicle at the time of interception. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicatory finding records that an e way bill (No. 741043010569) was generated at 04:37 PM prior to commencement of movement and accompanying documents (tax invoice, consignment note/packing list) were present. At the time of interception (05:18 PM) the e way bill on the portal showed the vehicle number not matching the intercepted vehicle; the vehicle details were updated on the portal at 05:28 PM. The authority noted that non furnishing of Part B renders an e way bill not a valid document under Explanation (2) to Rule 138(3) except in limited intra State movement. However, on the material before the Commissioner (Appeals) the discrepancy arose from a last minute change of vehicle by the transporter and was rectified soon after detection. There is no finding of tax evasion; all other statutory particulars were in order and the e way bill had been generated before dispatch. Taking these facts together, the detention and the consequential imposition of tax and 100% penalty were found not to be warranted and the impugned order was set aside. [Paras 6, 7, 9, 10, 11]Impugned detention and demand set aside and appeal allowed on merits insofar as detention and the demand with 100% penalty are concerned.Penalty under Section 125 for failure to produce/document required particulars - technical/clerical error in Part B (vehicle details) of the e way bill - Whether the appellant is nevertheless liable to any penalty for the admitted error in not updating the vehicle number prior to interception. - HELD THAT: - The appellant admitted that the vehicle number recorded initially did not correspond to the vehicle actually carrying the goods due to an unanticipated change by the transporter and that the vehicle details were corrected only after the discrepancy came to notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) treated the omission as an admitted mistake in compliance formalities and not as evasion, but concluded that liability to a penalty under Section 125 arises from the failure to have correct particulars with the conveyance at the time of interception. Applying this view, the Commissioner (Appeals) exercised discretion to substitute the levy imposed by the adjudicating authority with a reduced, specific monetary penalty. [Paras 10, 11]A penalty under Section 125 is imposed on the appellant (reduced to Rs. 15,000) for the admitted failure to have correct vehicle details at the time of interception.Final Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, set aside the adjudicating authority's order of detention and the demand with 100% penalty imposed thereunder, but imposed a reduced penalty of Rs. 15,000 under Section 125 for the admitted omission in vehicle details.

Valid e-way bill - detention under Section 129 - penalty under Section 125 - Part B vehicle details of the E-way Bill - technical breach versus evasion of taxValid e-way bill - Part B vehicle details of the E-way Bill - detention under Section 129 - technical breach versus evasion of tax - Whether detention of the goods and conveyance and confirmation of the demand under the impugned order was sustainable where the e-way bill had been generated prior to movement but vehicle details were updated later - HELD THAT: - The Commissioner (Appeals) found that an e-way bill was generated at 04:38 PM before commencement of movement and contained invoice, consignee and other requisite particulars. The vehicle number initially entered in Part B reflected the transporter's original vehicle (RJ-14-GF-9189) and, because of an unforeseen change of truck, the goods were actually moved in RJ-14-GF-6831; the vehicle detail was updated thereafter. The authority accepted that the mistake related to vehicle number was rectified soon after it came to notice and that there was no evidence of any intention to evade tax. Given that the statutory requirements as to documents accompanying the consignment were substantially satisfied and the omission was a mere technical error in Part B, the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that detention and confirmation of demand under the impugned order were not justified and the adjudicating authority's coercive measure could not be sustained.Impugned order detaining goods and confirming demand set aside; appeal allowed on this ground.Penalty under Section 125 - technical breach versus evasion of tax - Whether any penalty was leviable for the admitted error in vehicle number and, if so, its quantum - HELD THAT: - Although the error in vehicle number was treated as a technical mistake corrected shortly after detection and not indicative of tax evasion, the appellant admitted the omission to update the vehicle number before interception. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that that admission rendered the appellant liable to a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act. Exercising appellate power, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the consequence of the original order (which had imposed penalty equal to 100% of tax) to a fixed penalty to reflect the non-malicious nature of the breach.Penalty under Section 125 imposed in reduced amount of Rs. 10,000; rest of the penalties and tax demand set aside.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed insofar as the detention of goods, release conditions and the tax/penalty confirmed in the impugned order are set aside; a reduced penalty of Rs. 10,000 is imposed under Section 125 and the appeal is disposed accordingly.

Availability of refund of unutilised input tax credit - minor procedural lapse / non substantive errors or omission - rectification of invoices and compliance with Rule 46 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - admissibility of input tax credit based on documentary requirements under Rule 36 - input tax credit under reverse charge mechanism - proviso to Section 16 preserving ITC despite non payment within 180 daysMinor procedural lapse / non substantive errors or omission - rectification of invoices and compliance with Rule 46 of the CGST Rules, 2017 - availability of refund of unutilised input tax credit - Whether refund of a part of the claimed unutilised ITC could be denied for invoices that initially lacked recipient details but were later rectified. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected part of the refund on the ground that certain supplier invoices did not contain recipient address or GSTIN and that such particulars were typed on original invoices only after filing the refund claim, thereby alleging contravention of Rule 46 and Notification No.39/2018 CT. The appellate authority found that export related refunds should not be rejected for minor procedural lapses or non substantive errors that are susceptible of subsequent rectification. The appellant produced rectified invoices purportedly authenticated by suppliers and invoked the clarificatory tenor of Circular No.37/11/2018 GST. In view of these considerations, the matter was remitted for verification: the appellant was directed to place the original rectified invoices, duly authenticated by suppliers, before the adjudicating authority which may sanction the refund if the documents are found in order and the claim is otherwise admissible. [Paras 5, 6, 8]Refunds should not be rejected for minor procedural lapses; appellant to submit original rectified invoices and the adjudicating authority to verify and sanction the refund if admissible.Input tax credit under reverse charge mechanism - proviso to Section 16 preserving ITC despite non payment within 180 days - admissibility of input tax credit based on documentary requirements under Rule 36 - Whether failure to furnish a payment voucher or non payment to the supplier within 180 days for an inward supply covered under reverse charge defeats the refund claim or entitlement to ITC. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority disallowed a portion of the refund for lack of payment voucher relating to a reverse charge invoice. The appellate authority noted that a registered person liable to pay tax under reverse charge must issue an invoice and a payment voucher at the time of making payment, but also observed that the second proviso to Section 16 preserves the recipient's ITC even if payment to the supplier is not made within 180 days. Rule 36 and its proviso were considered, and Circular No.37/11/2018 GST and Notification No.39/2018 CT were referenced to stress that documentary or minor procedural deficiencies should not lead to denial where substantive compliance exists. The adjudicating authority is to verify the original rectified documents and the admissibility of the claim; if found in order, the refund may be granted. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Non payment within 180 days in respect of reverse charge supplies does not, by itself, extinguish ITC; adjudicating authority to verify documentary compliance and grant refund if admissible.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part on principles that minor procedural lapses should not result in rejection of export related refunds and that ITC under reverse charge is not lost for non payment within 180 days; the appellant is directed to produce original rectified invoices authenticated by suppliers and the adjudicating authority is directed to verify those documents and sanction the refund if the claim is found in order.

Value of supply - consideration includes non-monetary consideration - transaction value under Section 15 - valuation where consideration not wholly in money - Rule 27 - taxability of custom milling service - by-products retained as part of consideration - taxability of bran as supply of goods - invoice and delivery challan / bill of supply obligations for job workValue of supply - consideration includes non-monetary consideration - transaction value under Section 15 - valuation where consideration not wholly in money - Rule 27 - taxability of custom milling service - by-products retained as part of consideration - Levy of tax on estimated value of by-products retained by the rice miller during custom milling, treating those by-products as part of the value of the CMR job-work service. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority held that the CMR activity is a taxable service at 5% and that 'consideration' for supply under the Act includes amounts received in kind. Because the price received in cash (Rs.15 per quintal) is not the sole consideration, Section 15's transaction-value test is inapplicable in isolation and valuation must follow the sequence in Rule 27. Under Rule 27 the value of supply is the sum of the monetary consideration plus the money-equivalent of non-monetary consideration (the residues retained: broken rice, bran, husk), adjusted for any shortfall the miller must make good. The admitted contractual arrangement under which the miller retains the residues as compensation demonstrates that those residues constitute bona fide consideration for the milling service and must be included in the value of supply. Consequently, the assessing officer's inclusion of the market value of retained by-products in the taxable value of the CMR service was upheld. [Paras 20, 21, 22]Inclusion of the value of by-products retained by the miller as part of the value of the CMR service is upheld and the tax levied on that deemed value is confirmed.Taxability of bran as supply of goods - invoice and delivery challan / bill of supply obligations for job work - consideration includes non-monetary consideration - Levy of tax on the estimated sale value of rice bran retained by the miller. - HELD THAT: - The Authority examined whether bran retained or subsequently sold by the miller is taxable. It found that bran is not exempt under the CGST/APGST scheme and hence its sale constitutes a taxable supply. The order explains the complementary compliance positions: the civil supplies corporation should issue delivery challan and appropriate documents (bill of supply or tax invoice) for the goods transferred, while the miller must raise tax invoice for the taxable service and, when selling bran in the open market, must issue a tax invoice for bran. Because bran is taxable, the assessing officer's levy on estimated sale value of bran was sustainable. [Paras 21, 23]Levy of tax on the estimated sale value of rice bran is upheld and the tax so levied is confirmed.Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority confirmed the assessing authority's determination of tax for the period July, 2017 to June, 2018 by including the money-equivalent of by-products retained by the miller in the value of the custom milling service and upholding tax on the estimated sale value of bran; the appeal is dismissed.

Transaction value - valuation of supply - determination of value on the basis of MRP - confiscation of goods and conveyance under confiscation provisionsTransaction value - determination of value on the basis of MRP - valuation of supply - Whether the adjudicating authority was justified in treating the detained goods as undervalued by adopting MRP as the taxable value and in sustaining consequent tax, penalty and confiscation. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority proceeded on the premise that the goods were significantly undervalued because the invoice value was lower than the MRP and therefore arrived at a higher taxable value based on MRP. Under the GST valuation framework the taxable value is the transaction value, i.e. the price actually paid or payable where supplier and recipient are not related and price is the sole consideration; the CGST Act and Rules provide specific provisions for valuation where deviations are necessitated. In the present case the adjudicating authority did not place on record any material to demonstrate that the invoice value was not the true transaction value, nor was any inquiry undertaken to establish that the supplier and recipient were related or that the price was not the sole consideration. There is no provision in GST law mandating determination of value on the basis of MRP. Since the findings of undervaluation were made solely on the basis of MRP without any substantiation or application of valuation rules, the adjudicating authority's reliance on MRP to compute tax, penalty and confiscation was contrary to the valuation principles under the CGST Act. For these reasons the impugned order lacked legal basis and was not sustainable. [Paras 6, 8, 9]The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority held that taxable value must be the transaction value and that the adjudicating authority was not justified in determining value on the basis of MRP without any material or inquiry; the impugned order imposing tax, penalty and confiscation was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Best judgment assessment - return prescribed under Section 39 - GSTR-3B not a return under Section 39 - estimation of turnover based on relevant material - penalty for willful suppression under Section 122 - interest on delayed payment under Section 50Best judgment assessment - return prescribed under Section 39 - GSTR-3B not a return under Section 39 - Validity of invoking Section 62 to make best-judgment assessment for failure to file GSTR-3B returns - HELD THAT: - The authority proceeded under Section 62 on the premise that failure to furnish GSTR-3B attracts best-judgment assessment. The appellate authority examined Section 62 read with Rule 61(1) and held that the power under Section 62 applies where the registered person fails to furnish the return specified under Section 39 (i.e., Form GSTR-3). Reliance was placed on the Gujarat High Court decision which held that, for the relevant period, GSTR-3B is not the return prescribed under Section 39 and is only a temporary arrangement; accordingly the jurisdictional pre-requisite to invoke Section 62 was absent. In consequence, the best-judgment common assessment orders founded on failure to file GSTR-3B were held to be without jurisdiction and annulled. [Paras 23]Best-judgment assessment under Section 62 based on non-filing of GSTR-3B quashed for lack of jurisdiction; assessment annulled.Estimation of turnover based on relevant material - best judgment assessment - Sustainability of the A.A.'s uniform addition of 50% to declared outward supplies as basis for tax demand - HELD THAT: - The A.A. uniformly enhanced declared turnover by 50% without recording any material, enquiries or reasons linking such enhancement to objective evidence. The appellate authority applied established principles governing best-judgment assessments (no arbitrariness; nexus to relevant material) and concluded that mere presumption or suspicion without supporting bills, vouchers or other corroborative material cannot sustain the estimation. The upliftment to 150% was held to be arbitrary, erroneous and unsustainable and therefore the corresponding tax additions were deleted; the actual tax liability was to be fixed as per the appellant's GSTR-1 disclosures. [Paras 23]Addition of 50% to declared turnover set aside; tax determined on actual disclosed turnover as per GSTR-1.Penalty for willful suppression under Section 122 - Legitimacy of levy of 100% penalty under Section 122 for willful suppression - HELD THAT: - The A.A. imposed penalty on the premise of willful suppression, but the appellant had filed GSTR-1 declaring outward supplies and there was no material demonstrating deliberate suppression or willful misstatement. The appellate authority noted that imposition of penalty for willful suppression requires specific facts and evidence and that penalty tied to the impugned tax additions falls when those additions are set aside. The practice of clubbing tax and penalty in a single order without separate notice for penalty was also found to be impermissible in light of precedents. Consequently, the 100% penalty was annulled. [Paras 23]Penalty under Section 122 (100%) annulled and deleted.Interest on delayed payment under Section 50 - Validity of interest levy under Section 50 - HELD THAT: - Section 50 mandates interest on delayed payment of tax. Having annulled the impugned tax additions, the appellate authority held that interest liability survives insofar as tax remains due. The levy of interest was upheld in principle, but the authority directed recomputation of interest as on date against the actual tax liability determined according to the appellant's GSTR-1 returns for the period in question. [Paras 23]Interest under Section 50 upheld; directed to be recomputed on the actual tax liability as determined.Final Conclusion: Appeal partly allowed. Best-judgment tax assessment and uniform 50% uplift based on non-filing of GSTR-3B set aside for lack of jurisdiction and for want of material; corresponding 100% penalty annulled. Interest under Section 50 sustained but to be recomputed on the actual tax liability determined from the appellant's GSTR-1 for January, 2019 to February, 2019.

Transitional input tax credit under Section 140(3) - possession of prescribed documents evidencing payment of duty under Section 140(3)(iii) - validity of VAT invoices as evidence vis-a -vis Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - disallowance and recovery of wrongly availed credit under Section 73 - interest on recovery under Section 50 - penalty under Section 122(2)Transitional input tax credit under Section 140(3) - possession of prescribed documents evidencing payment of duty under Section 140(3)(iii) - validity of VAT invoices as evidence vis-a -vis Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Whether the appellant was entitled to transitional input tax credit of Rs. 90,639/- for inputs held as on 30-6-2017 in absence of prescribed documents evidencing payment of duty under the existing law. - HELD THAT: - The appellant submitted 58 VAT invoices and a certificate from the principal manufacturer asserting excise duty payment. Section 140(3)(iii) conditions entitlement to transitional credit on possession of invoice or other prescribed documents evidencing payment of duty under the existing law. The VAT invoices produced do not satisfy the requirements of the prescribed documents under Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002; accordingly they cannot be treated as compliant evidence for taking transitional credit. The appellant's reliance on an interim decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was noted but not accepted as a binding precedent for allowing credit. On the basis that the statutory condition of possession of prescribed documents was not fulfilled, the conclusion reached by the adjudicating authority that the credit was wrongly availed is upheld. [Paras 7, 8]The disallowance of ITC of Rs. 90,639/- is sustained and the appeal is rejected.Final Conclusion: Appeal dismissed; transitional input tax credit disallowance upheld for lack of prescribed documents evidencing payment of duty as required by Section 140(3)(iii), with the impugned order of recovery, interest and penalty sustained.

Validity and extension of e-way bill under Rule 138(10) - detention and seizure of goods and conveyance under Section 129 of the CGST Act - penalty for movement of goods without a valid e-way bill - burden of proof to establish intra-city/short-distance movement for exemption from actionValidity and extension of e-way bill under Rule 138(10) - renewal/cancellation of e-way bill - Whether the e-way bill for the consignment was valid at the time of movement or required extension/renewal under Rule 138(10). - HELD THAT: - The adjudicatory record shows the e-way bill had expired during transit. Rule 138(10) prescribes validity periods measured from the date of generation and permits extension where goods cannot be transported within the validity period; the transporter or consignor is required to take steps to extend the validity or generate a fresh e-way bill. The appellant neither extended the existing e-way bill nor generated an alternate valid document despite the availability of the procedural remedy. The appellant's explanation attributing expiry to delay at the recipient's warehouse and inability of the portal to raise multiple e-way bills for the same invoice was not accepted in the absence of steps being taken to secure validity as envisaged by the Rule. Consequently, the e-way bill was not a valid document for the movement at the relevant time and the contention of a valid e-way bill was rejected. [Paras 7]The e-way bill was invalid at the time of movement and required extension/renewal under Rule 138(10), which was not effected by the appellant.Detention and seizure of goods and conveyance under Section 129 of the CGST Act - penalty for movement of goods without a valid e-way bill - burden of proof to establish intra-city/short-distance movement for exemption from action - Whether detention/seizure of the goods and conveyance and imposition of tax and equal penalty were justified where the e-way bill was expired and the appellant failed to prove short-distance transfer. - HELD THAT: - The officers intercepted the vehicle and found the e-way bill expired. Under the statutory scheme, movement without a valid e-way bill permits detention/seizure under Section 129 and attracts demand of tax with penalty. The appellant claimed the movement was within 50 km and therefore not subject to action, but failed to produce documentary evidence correlating the transporter's location and recipient's location to substantiate short-distance transfer. Given absence of documentary proof and failure to take measures to extend or renew the e-way bill, the authority was entitled to detain/seize and to require payment of tax and impose penalty. The adjudicating authority's conclusion that detention, demand of IGST and equal penalty were sustainable on facts and law was affirmed. [Paras 2, 7, 8]Detention/seizure of goods and vehicle and the demand of tax with equal penalty were justified and the impugned order confirming tax and penalty is upheld.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The adjudicating authority rightly found the e-way bill to be invalid during transit, the appellant failed to secure extension or produce evidence of short-distance transfer, and detention, demand of tax and imposition of equal penalty are sustained.

Validity of e-way bill and requirement to furnish Part B - exception in Rule 138(3) for consignor-to-transporter movement within fifty kilometres - detention and seizure under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 - penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 - requirement of a reasoned adjudicatory order - intention to evade tax and revenue loss testValidity of e-way bill and requirement to furnish Part B - exception in Rule 138(3) for consignor-to-transporter movement within fifty kilometres - detention and seizure under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 - penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 - intention to evade tax and revenue loss test - requirement of a reasoned adjudicatory order - Whether detention and confirmation of tax and penalty for movement of goods were justified where Part B of the e-way bill carried an incorrect vehicle number but the movement fell within the Rule 138(3) proviso and there was no finding of intention to evade or revenue loss; and whether a penalty under Section 125 could be imposed despite defects in the adjudicating order. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority detained the goods and confirmed tax and penalty on the basis that some material lacked invoices and that the e-way bill had an incorrect vehicle number. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the impugned order did not specify quantities or particularize which goods lacked invoices or E-way bills and that the authority had made inconsistent entries as to conveyance, indicating lack of attention and absence of reasoning. The movement at issue involved delivery from the consignor's premises to the transporter within the State for a distance of less than fifty kilometres. Under Rule 138(3) (third proviso), furnishing details of the conveyance in Part B is not mandatory for such consignor-to-transporter movements; consequently the non-correction of the vehicle number in Part B was a technical omission not amounting to an offence of evasion or to revenue loss. Nevertheless, the appellant admitted that the vehicle number in Part B was not corrected and the goods were accompanied by the e-way bill bearing the incorrect vehicle number. On these facts the Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that while seizure and confirmation on the grounds of evasion were not justified and the impugned order was to be set aside for lack of proper reasoning, a penalty under Section 125 was nevertheless appropriate for the admitted procedural omission. The appeal was therefore allowed, the impugned order set aside, and a penalty imposed while recording that there was no finding of intent to evade or of revenue loss. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 10]Impugned detention and confirmation of tax set aside for lack of proper reasoning and because the incorrect vehicle number in Part B was a technical omission covered by the Rule 138(3) proviso (movement to transporter within fifty kilometres) that did not show intent to evade or revenue loss; appeal allowed but penalty of Rs.25,000 imposed under Section 125.Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the adjudicating authority's order of detention and confirmation of tax was set aside for want of proper reasoning and because the vehicle-number defect fell within the Rule 138(3) proviso and did not demonstrate intent to evade or revenue loss; a penalty of Rs.25,000 under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 was imposed on the appellant.

E-way Bill non-updation as a minor clerical/technical error - Absence of fraudulent intent / intention to evade tax - Detention and levy under Section 129 of the CGST/HPGST Act and the requirement of opportunity of being heard under Section 129(4) - Discretion in imposition of penalty for minor breaches and easily rectifiable documentation errors - Liability for transporting taxable goods without prescribed documents and penalty under Section 122(1)(xiv)E-way Bill non-updation as a minor clerical/technical error - Absence of fraudulent intent / intention to evade tax - Detention and levy under Section 129 of the CGST/HPGST Act and the requirement of opportunity of being heard under Section 129(4) - Validity of detention of goods and imposition of tax/penalty under Section 129 where the e-way bill part-B showed the earlier vehicle number and the actual vehicle number had not been updated at the time of inspection, though invoice and e-way bill existed and tax had been paid. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found no dispute as to quantity or ownership of goods and that tax had been duly charged and paid and that the invoice and e-way bill identifying the machine/engine numbers were available. The sole procedural lapse was non-updation of part B of the e-way bill to reflect transhipment to a second vehicle caused by a mid-night breakdown. The authority accepted that the appellant updated the part B shortly after interception. The officer who detained and levied tax/penalty failed to demonstrate any intention to evade tax or any tax loss; the material remained in transit and was not offloaded. Further, Section 129(4) mandates that no tax, interest or penalty be determined under sub section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. The appellate authority concluded that the detaining officer acted in haste, levying tax/penalty without affording the required hearing and without adequately considering that the error was easily rectifiable and bereft of fraudulent intent. Reliance was placed on the statutory approach disfavoring penal action for venial or technical breaches and on precedents treating such minor/clerical discrepancies as not indicative of evasion. Consequently the tax/penalty imposed under Section 129(3) was held unsustainable and ordered to be set aside and refunded. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Detention and tax/penalty under Section 129(3) set aside and tax/penalty deposited to be refunded for lack of shown intention to evade tax and for non-compliance with the opportunity-of-hearing requirement.Discretion in imposition of penalty for minor breaches and easily rectifiable documentation errors - Liability for transporting taxable goods without prescribed documents and penalty under Section 122(1)(xiv) - Whether the appellant should nevertheless be subjected to a lesser penalty for the procedural lapse of not updating the e-way bill part-B before resuming the journey. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority accepted that the appellant committed a procedural lapse by not updating part B of the e-way bill prior to resuming transportation and that Rule 138(10) contemplates updating in cases of transshipment. Applying the statutory scheme disfavoring penalty for minor, rectifiable documentation errors and judicial precedents endorsing leniency for technical or venial breaches, the authority exercised its discretion to impose a reduced/nominal penalty rather than uphold the large tax/penalty levied under Section 129. Having set aside the earlier determination, the authority invoked Section 122(xiv) (penalty for transporting taxable goods without prescribed documents) and, considering facts and mitigating circumstances, imposed a single, modest penalty to mark liability for the lapse while affording substantive relief. [Paras 9, 10]A nominal penalty of Rs. Ten Thousand imposed under Section 122(1)(xiv); the larger tax/penalty previously levied under Section 129(3) is deleted and amounts deposited are to be refunded.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the order under Section 129(3) detaining goods and levying tax/penalty is set aside for lack of intention to evade tax and for non-compliance with the hearing requirement; deposited amounts under Section 129(3) are to be refunded, and a reduced penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 122(1)(xiv) is imposed for the procedural lapse of not updating part B of the e-way bill.

Penalty under section 129(3) for detention of goods in transit - updation of Part B of e-way bill on trans-shipment - opportunity of being heard under section 129(4) - penalty under section 122 for transporting taxable goods without cover of documents - relief for minor or procedural breaches and applicability of CBIC circularsPenalty under section 129(3) for detention of goods in transit - updation of Part B of e-way bill on trans-shipment - Validity of tax and penalty levied under section 129(3) where goods were transshipped and the e-way bill part B was not updated at the time of inspection but was subsequently updated. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority found no dispute as to quantity or existence of invoices and that the e-way bill had been generated on 05-11-2018. The goods were transshipped after the carrying vehicle broke down and the transporter updated part B of the e way bill thereafter. The authority below detained the vehicle and mechanically imposed tax and penalty under section 129(3) despite production of the corrected e way bill. The Appellate Authority concluded that there was no evidence of intention to evade tax or of changing vehicle to evade tax, and that the imposition under section 129(3) was therefore unsustainable in the circumstances. [Paras 7, 9, 11]Order under section 129(3) setting out tax and penalty is set aside and the amount deposited under that order is directed to be refunded.Opportunity of being heard under section 129(4) - Whether the determination under section 129(3) complied with the requirement of hearing under section 129(4). - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority observed that section 129(4) requires an opportunity of being heard before determining tax, interest or penalty under subsection (3). The authority below proceeded to levy tax and penalty without affording the statutory opportunity, and acted in haste in doing so. This failure was material to the conclusion that the levy under section 129(3) could not be sustained. [Paras 8, 9]The determination under section 129(3) is vitiated for want of the opportunity of being heard prescribed by section 129(4).Penalty under section 122 for transporting taxable goods without cover of documents - relief for minor or procedural breaches and applicability of CBIC circulars - Appropriate penalty for the procedural lapse of not updating the e-way bill at the time of inspection. - HELD THAT: - While the Appellate Authority found the transporter guilty of a procedural lapse in not updating part B before resuming the journey, it treated the breach as one warranting a lesser, statutory penalty rather than the tax/penalty under section 129(3). The authority referred to the penal provisions in section 122 and concluded that a moderate penalty was appropriate in view of absence of evasive intent and production of requisite documents. Consequently, a penalty under section 122(xiv) for transporting taxable goods without the cover of documents was imposed as the alternative statutory consequence. [Paras 10, 11]A penalty of Rs. Ten Thousand is imposed on the taxpayer under section 122(xiv); the deposit made under section 129(3) shall be refunded.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the order imposing tax and penalty under section 129(3) is set aside for want of substantive justification and failure to afford the hearing mandated by section 129(4); the sum deposited under that order shall be refunded, and a reduced penalty of Rs. Ten Thousand is imposed under section 122(xiv).

Typographical/clerical error in tax invoice and E-way Bill - penalty under Section 129(3) for contravention of E-way Bill rules - treatment of minor errors in E-way Bill in light of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST and State Circular - absence of mens rea / no intention to evade tax - imposition of nominal penalty under Section 125 in lieu of proceedings under Section 129Typographical/clerical error in tax invoice and E-way Bill - penalty under Section 129(3) for contravention of E-way Bill rules - treatment of minor errors in E-way Bill in light of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST and State Circular - imposition of nominal penalty under Section 125 in lieu of proceedings under Section 129 - Whether a two digit typographical error in the vehicle number on both the tax invoice and the E way Bill justified initiation of proceedings and imposition of tax/penalty under Section 129(3), or whether the case fell within the circulars' dispensation attracting nominal penalty under Section 125. - HELD THAT: - The appellate authority found that the mismatch in vehicle number (HP17B 1790 vs HP17B 4290) was a typographic error made while issuing the tax invoice and generating the E way Bill, with no dispute as to quantity, quality or validity of the E way Bill. The authority applied the guidance in CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 GST and the State circular, which identify situations of minor errors in E way Bill/details where proceedings under Section 129 need not be initiated and prescribe imposition of nominal penalty under Section 125. The Proper Officer had imposed the penalty under Section 129(3) in a mechanical manner and did not establish intention to evade tax or any material consequence arising from the digit error. In view of these findings the additional demand under Section 129(3) was held unsustainable and substituted with the nominal penalty prescribed by the circulars. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10]Order under Section 129(3) set aside; additional demand refunded; nominal penalty under Section 125 (as per the circulars) imposed.Absence of mens rea / no intention to evade tax - penalty under Section 129(3) for contravention of E-way Bill rules - Whether mens rea (intention to evade tax) was present and necessary for sustaining the penalty imposed. - HELD THAT: - The authority examined the respondent's contention invoking the mens rea principle but found no substantial evidence to demonstrate deliberate intention to evade tax or that the appellant changed vehicle details to obtain extended validity or to conceal the consignment. The factual matrix - admission of a clerical mistake, correct GSTIN, no dispute on goods or E way Bill validity, and absence of proof of manipulation - led the authority to conclude there was no guilty mind and that the case was one of actus (a typographical error) rather than mens rea. Consequently, the imposition of a heavier penalty under Section 129(3) was not justified. [Paras 7, 9]No mens rea established; heavier penalty under Section 129(3) not sustained.Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds: the detention/seizure penalty under Section 129(3) is quashed and refunded; a nominal penalty under Section 125 is imposed in accordance with the CBIC and State circulars due to a typographical error in vehicle number and absence of intent to evade tax.

Provisional release of seized goods - security in the form of bond and bank guarantee for release - determination of security equivalent to tax and penalty for provisional release under sub section (6) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 - relevance of judicial precedents and judicial discipline in provisional release ordersProvisional release of seized goods - security in the form of bond and bank guarantee for release - determination of security equivalent to tax and penalty for provisional release under sub section (6) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 - Validity of the provisional release order and conditions imposed (execution of bond for value of seized goods and furnishing of bank guarantee equivalent to applicable tax and penalty). - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined the appeal limited to the conditions imposed for provisional release and noted that the investigation remains pending. The releasing authority had provisionally released the seized goods subject to execution of a bond for the value of the goods and furnishing of a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of applicable tax and penalty. The authority found that the provisional release order was passed in accordance with law and specifically under sub section (6) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Appellate Authority further observed that the judicial decisions cited by the appellant did not apply squarely to the facts of the present case and therefore did not merit interference with the impugned order. On this basis, no fault was found with the determination of the security conditions imposed for provisional release and the appeal on these grounds was dismissed. [Paras 5, 6]The provisional release order and the conditions imposed (bond and bank guarantee equivalent to tax and penalty) are sustained; no interference is warranted.Final Conclusion: Appeal dismissed insofar as it challenges the conditions of the provisional release order; the releasing authority's order under sub section (6) of Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 is upheld and the matter continues to be subject to ongoing investigation.

Refund of accumulated input tax credit - debit of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 89(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - error in GST common portal affecting FORM GST DRC-03 - remand to adjudicating authority for verification and processing under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017Refund of accumulated input tax credit - debit of Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 89(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - error in GST common portal affecting FORM GST DRC-03 - Validity of rejection of refund claim on the ground that no amount was debited from the Electronic Credit Ledger (NIL ARN) when FORM GST DRC-03 could not be executed due to errors in the GST portal. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim because the appellant had generated an ARN for NIL amount and no debit was reflected in the Electronic Credit Ledger, whereas debit through FORM GST DRC-03 was required under Rule 89(3). The appellant explained and documented that the GST common portal prevented debiting the available ITC despite attempts and multiple help-desk complaints, and subsequently debited the ledger by filing FORM GST DRC-03 (ARN AD081119002254F dated 20-11-2019) after the portal was rectified. The appellate authority accepted that the failure to debit initially arose from portal errors and that the appellant has since filed the required FORM GST DRC-03 and supporting documents. Rather than adjudicating the refund on merits, the appellate authority directed that the appellant submit the FORM GST DRC-03 and related documents to the adjudicating authority so that the refund claim may be verified and processed in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the rules thereunder. [Paras 3, 6, 7, 8]Appeal disposed of by directing the appellant to submit FORM GST DRC-03 and supporting documents to the adjudicating authority for verification and processing of the refund claim; matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for further action.Final Conclusion: The appellate authority disposed the appeal and remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority with a direction to verify the subsequently filed FORM GST DRC-03 and related documents and to process the refund claim for the period December, 2017 to March, 2018 in accordance with Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 and applicable rules.

Detention and penalty under Section 129 - e-way bill obligations under Rule 138 - scope and definition of "supply" under Section 7 - intent to evade as prerequisite for confiscation under Section 130 - penalty for transport without prescribed documents under Section 122Detention and penalty under Section 129 - e-way bill obligations under Rule 138 - scope and definition of "supply" under Section 7 - intent to evade as prerequisite for confiscation under Section 130 - Whether the order confirming IGST demand and imposing equal penalty under Section 129 for interstate movement of a machine sent for repair without an e way bill was sustainable. - HELD THAT: - The adjudicating authority treated the transaction as attracting IGST by valuing the consignment at the earlier purchase invoice and imposed tax plus equal penalty under Section 129 for non generation of e way bill. The appellate authority found that the goods were admittedly sent for repair and the transaction had no tax implication as it did not amount to a taxable "supply" for the purpose of levy. Further, confiscation/ detention under Section 129 arises only where goods are liable to confiscation under Section 130, which in turn contemplates a taxable supply made with intent to evade tax. In the absence of any finding or material showing intent to evade and given that the machine had been purchased earlier on payment of IGST, the imposition of tax and equal penalty under Section 129 was not justified. The method of valuation adopted by the proper officer-using the original purchase invoice of a nine month old machine-to compute tax and penalty was also held to be not just and proper. On these bases the demand under Section 129 confirming IGST and equal penalty was set aside and the amounts appropriated were to be refunded. [Paras 20, 21, 22]Order confirming IGST and equal penalty under Section 129 set aside; appropriated amounts to be refunded.Detention and penalty under Section 129 - e-way bill obligations under Rule 138 - penalty for transport without prescribed documents under Section 122 - Whether procedural lapses (non generation of e way bill and deficiencies in the impugned order) warranted a different penal consequence and whether any penalty should be imposed. - HELD THAT: - The tribunal accepted that the taxpayer violated the e way bill requirements under Rule 138 by transporting goods without the prescribed document. While the adjudication under Section 129 (demand of tax and equal penalty) was set aside for reasons stated in the principal issue, the appellate authority observed that transport without prescribed documents attracts penalty provisions elsewhere in the statute. Having regard to the factual findings (no dispute on description/quantity, bona fide belief regarding exemption, lack of intent to evade and the impropriety of valuation), the authority exercised its discretion to impose a mitigated penalty under Section 122(1) for transportation without documents. The adjudicator imposed a consolidated penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 122(1) and directed refund of the amounts appropriated under the set aside order. [Paras 21, 22]Imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 122(1); directed refund of amounts appropriated under the impugned order.Principles of natural justice - detention and penalty under Section 129 - Whether absence of opportunity of personal hearing and non supply of operative portion of the adjudicating order vitiated the proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The appellant alleged absence of personal hearing as required by Section 129(4) and non receipt of the operative portions of the order. The appellate record records these procedural deficiencies. While the appellate outcome rested principally on substantive grounds (absence of taxable supply, lack of intent to evade and improper valuation), the authority noted procedural lapses in the adjudicating process. Considering the totality of facts and that the impugned demand was unsustainable on merits, the appellate order set aside the impugned order and granted relief; this remedied the procedural defects without remanding for fresh adjudication. [Paras 11, 13, 22]Procedural infirmities noted; impugned order set aside on substantive and procedural grounds and no remand ordered.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed. The order dated 27 11 2018 imposing IGST and equal penalty under Section 129 is set aside and the amounts appropriated are to be refunded; a reduced penalty of Rs. 10,000 is imposed under Section 122(1).

Detention, seizure and release of goods in transit under Section 129 - Validity and extension of E-way bill under Rule 138 - Requirement to update Part B of the E-way Bill on transshipment - Distinction between procedural lapse and intent to evade tax - Applicability of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 and State circular on initiation of proceedings - Penalty for procedural lapses under Section 125Detention, seizure and release of goods in transit under Section 129 - Validity and extension of E-way bill under Rule 138 - Requirement to update Part B of the E-way Bill on transshipment - Distinction between procedural lapse and intent to evade tax - Applicability of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 and State circular on initiation of proceedings - Whether orders of detention, demand of tax and penalty under Section 129 could be sustained where the E-way bill validity had expired shortly before interception although Part B had been updated at transshipment and other documents accompanied the consignment. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority found that the consignments were accompanied by proper documents, transshipment had been effected at Chandigarh and Part B of the E-way bills had been filled at the time of transshipment on 20.11.2018. The E-way bills expired at midnight on 20.11.2018 and the vehicles were intercepted in the early morning of 21.11.2018 - approximately eight to nine hours after expiry. The Authority observed that Rule 138(10) permits extension within a limited period and that, on the facts, the appellant was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to update Part A after expiry. Reliance was placed on CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 and the State circular which indicate that where a consignment is accompanied by an invoice and an E-way bill (and where transshipment/Part B update shows movement), initiation of proceedings under Section 129 may not be warranted for mere procedural non-compliance. Applying these principles, the Authority concluded that the imposition of tax and 100% penalty under Section 129 was harsh and unsustainable in the absence of any indication of an intent to evade tax; the detention/demand orders were therefore set aside. [Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]Orders of detention and demand under Section 129 quashed; appeals accepted.Penalty for procedural lapses under Section 125 - Applicability of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 and State circular on initiation of proceedings - Whether any lesser penalty should be imposed for the procedural lapses found. - HELD THAT: - Although the detention and demand under Section 129 were set aside, the Authority found that the appellant had committed minor procedural lapses in complying with the E-way bill validity/extension requirements. Having regard to the nature of the lapse and the guidance in the CBIC and State circulars, the Authority exercised its discretion to impose a nominal penalty for procedural non-compliance rather than uphold the tax and 100% penalty demanded under Section 129. The procedural breach was treated as not amounting to willful evasion of tax. [Paras 19]A penalty of Rs. 1,000 in each case imposed under Section 125; to be recovered accordingly.Final Conclusion: The appeals are allowed: the orders of detention and tax/penalty demand under Section 129 are set aside as disproportionate in the absence of any intent to evade tax, but a nominal penalty of Rs. 1,000 in each case is imposed on the appellant for the procedural lapses in relation to the E-way bills in accordance with the CBIC and State circulars.

Validity of e-way bill and typographical error - contravention of Rule 138 of CGST/HPGST Rules, 2017 - detention and seizure under Section 129 of CGST/HPGST Act - CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 - treatment of minor errors in e-way bill - imposition of penalty under Section 125 of CGST/HPGST Act - refund of tax/penalty paid under protestValidity of e-way bill and typographical error - contravention of Rule 138 of CGST/HPGST Rules, 2017 - detention and seizure under Section 129 of CGST/HPGST Act - CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 - treatment of minor errors in e-way bill - Typographical error in the distance entered in the e-way bill which caused premature expiry did not warrant detention and confiscation under Section 129 where the consignment was accompanied by invoice and other documents and the error was minor. - HELD THAT: - The authority found that the distance was entered as 20 km instead of 2000 km, resulting in an e-way bill validity of one day and its expiry before interception. The Appellate Authority accepted the view that this was a typographical/minor error and noted the CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 which provides that proceedings under Section 129 need not be initiated where consignments are accompanied by invoice and e-way bill and the discrepancy is one of the kinds enumerated as minor. The Authority also relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court (Sabitha Riyaz) treating a similar missing zero in distance as a typographical error. Applying these precedents and the circular, the Appellate Authority concluded that detention/seizure under Section 129, with consequential demand and confiscation treatment, was not warranted in the facts of this case.Impugned order under Section 129 for contravention of Rule 138 was set aside on the ground that the error was typographical/minor and the consignment was otherwise properly documented.Refund of tax/penalty paid under protest - imposition of penalty under Section 125 of CGST/HPGST Act - application of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 for mitigation - Amount paid as tax and penalty for release of goods was refundable and a nominal penalty under Section 125 (as per the circular) was to be imposed instead. - HELD THAT: - Having held that the detention and demand under Section 129 were not sustainable, the Appellate Authority directed refund of the amounts deposited by the appellant under protest. In place of the confiscation-linked penalty, the Authority applied paragraph 6 of CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018 and the State circular to impose nominal penalties under Section 125 (Rs. 500 under SGST and Rs. 500 under CGST as prescribed by the circular) for the minor procedural lapse. The decision balanced the finding of a minor/typographical error with imposition of the mitigated monetary sanction specified by the circular.Refund of the tax and penalty deposited under protest was directed and nominal penalties under Section 125 were imposed in accordance with the CBIC and State circulars.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed: order of detention and demand under Section 129 set aside as the e-way bill error was a minor typographical mistake covered by CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018; amounts deposited under protest refunded and mitigated penalties under Section 125 imposed as per the circular.

Refund of unutilised input tax credit - zero-rated supplies - refund claim in respect of supplies to SEZ unit/developer - declaration from SEZ unit regarding non-availment of input tax credit - interpretation of Rule 89(1) and Rule 89(2)(f) - Section 54(3) - eligibility for refund of ITCRefund of unutilised input tax credit - zero-rated supplies - Section 54(3) - eligibility for refund of ITC - Rule 89(1) - proviso for supplies to SEZ - Rule 89(2)(f) - declaration from SEZ unit - Whether the appellant (SEZ unit) was entitled to the refund of unutilised input tax credit claimed in respect of supplies received from non SEZ suppliers for the tax period July, 2017 to March, 2018. - HELD THAT: - The Appellate Authority examined Section 54(3) together with Rule 89(1) and Rule 89(2)(f). Rule 89(1) (second proviso) prescribes that in respect of supplies to a Special Economic Zone unit or developer the refund shall be filed by the supplier of goods/services after endorsement by the specified officer of the Zone. Rule 89(2)(f) requires a declaration (as applicable) regarding non availment/non collection of input tax credit by the SEZ unit in cases where refund arises on account of supplies made to a SEZ unit/developer. A conjoint reading of these provisions shows that the legislative scheme contemplates refund of tax paid on supplies to SEZ units to be claimed by the suppliers (where tax has been paid) subject to prescribed safeguards (including the requisite declaration), and not by the SEZ unit claiming refund of ITC for supplies received from non SEZ suppliers. The Appellate Authority applied these provisions and found the appellant's contention that the SEZ unit itself could claim refund against zero rated supplies made without payment of tax to be not tenable. On this basis the Authority upheld the assessing authority's rejection of the refund claim. [Paras 19, 20, 21, 22]The refund claim by the appellant was not maintainable under the cited provisions and the assessing authority's rejection of the refund was upheld.Final Conclusion: The Appellate Authority affirmed the assessing authority's rejection of the refund claim for the period July, 2017 to March, 2018; the appeal is dismissed and the refund rejection is confirmed.