Appeal successful: Tax order overturned, penalty set aside due to procedural lapses. Invalid detention and seizure.

The appeal was accepted, and the impugned order imposing tax and penalty was set aside due to procedural lapses and lack of intent to evade tax. The detention and seizure of goods were deemed invalid as the E-way bill was completed before the detention memo was issued. The Proper Officer's actions were considered arbitrary, leading to the imposition of a penalty for incomplete E-way bill details. The appeal was granted, and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed under Section 125 of the IGST/CGST Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Non-compliance with procedural requirements for filing an appeal.
3. Validity of the detention and seizure of goods due to incomplete E-way bill.
4. Imposition of tax and penalty without establishing intent to evade tax.
5. Application of precedents and legal principles in the imposition of penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed the appeal on 13-8-2018, which was nine days late beyond the 90-day period stipulated under Section 107 of the IGST/CGST Act. The appellant submitted an application for condonation of delay, which was accepted, and the delay was condoned.

2. Non-compliance with Procedural Requirements:
The appellant initially submitted the original copy of the impugned order along with the appeal document instead of a certified copy as required. However, the appeal was entertained as the original copy was available, and the procedural requirement was deemed fulfilled.

3. Validity of the Detention and Seizure of Goods:
During a roadside check on 1-5-2018, the goods were detained because Part-B of the E-way bill was not filled. The Proper Officer issued a detention order in FORM GST MOV-06 on 2-5-2018. However, the appellant had completed Part-B of the E-way bill on 1-5-2018 at 08:55 AM, prior to the issuance of the detention memo. The case was compared to the judgment in "Modern Traders v. State of UP," where it was held that goods cannot be seized if the E-way bill is generated before the seizure order is passed. The Proper Officer's failure to issue the detention memo at the time of interception and the completion of Part-B before the memo rendered the detention and seizure invalid.

4. Imposition of Tax and Penalty Without Establishing Intent to Evade Tax:
The Proper Officer imposed a tax of Rs. 70,454/- and an equal amount of penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the HGST/CGST Acts. The appellant argued that the imposition was arbitrary and without establishing any intent to evade tax. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's principle in "Hindustan Steel Ltd." that penalty should not be imposed unless there is a deliberate defiance of law or dishonest conduct. The appellant's failure to fill Part-B was a procedural lapse without any intention to evade tax. The Proper Officer did not establish mens rea or any attempt to evade tax, making the imposition of penalty unjustified.

5. Application of Precedents and Legal Principles:
The appellant cited precedents, including "Modern Traders v. State of UP" and "Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India," where it was held that goods cannot be seized if the E-way bill is generated before the seizure order. The Proper Officer's actions were found to be in violation of these precedents. Additionally, the judgment emphasized that mere procedural infractions without intent to evade tax do not warrant detention or seizure under Section 129.

Conclusion:
The impugned order dated 4-5-2018, imposing tax and penalty, was set aside. The Proper Officer's actions were found to be arbitrary and without jurisdiction. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed under Section 125 of the IGST/CGST Act for not mentioning proper details in the E-way bill. The appeal was accepted, and the order was issued in Form GST APL-04.

---