2020 (10) TMI 847 - Commissioner - GST

Adjudicating authority upholds tax and penalty in CGST case, rejecting appellant's arguments on tax evasion.

Shri Prateek Garg, Mahesh Iron Steel Re-Rolling Mills Versus Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-J, Ajmer

Shri Prateek Garg, Mahesh Iron Steel Re-Rolling Mills Versus Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-J, Ajmer - 2020 (42) G. S. T. L. 513 (Commr. Appl. - ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of the tax and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST.2. Legitimacy of the interception and detention of goods.3. Compliance with E-way Bill requirements.4. Claim of subsequent 'sale in transit.'5. Applicability of cited case laws.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the tax and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST:The appellant contested the tax and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, arguing that the order was erroneous and did not consider the full facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant claimed that there was no tax evasion, as all transactions were between registered dealers, and there was no basis for double taxation. The adjudicating authority, however, confirmed the CGST and SGST amounts along with equal penalties, citing non-compliance with the CGST Act and Rules.2. Legitimacy of the interception and detention of goods:The goods were intercepted outside M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, which was off-route from the intended delivery address mentioned in the E-way Bill. The adjudicating authority detained the goods under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to discrepancies in the documentation. The appellant’s defense was that the goods were in transit due to a subsequent sale, but this was not accepted by the adjudicating authority.3. Compliance with E-way Bill requirements:The adjudicating authority found that the goods were not accompanied by a valid E-way Bill at the time of interception. The original E-way Bill was meant for delivery to a different address, and no valid E-way Bill was available for the appellant’s address. The appellant generated a second E-way Bill after the interception, which the adjudicating authority deemed as an afterthought and not in compliance with the rules.4. Claim of subsequent 'sale in transit':The appellant argued that there was a subsequent sale in transit, moving the goods from Jaitaran to Ajmer. However, the adjudicating authority rejected this claim, stating that there was no agreement for a transit sale, and no subsequent invoice or E-way Bill was generated before the interception. The adjudicating authority concluded that the claim of a subsequent sale was an afterthought and not legally valid.5. Applicability of cited case laws:The appellant cited several case laws in their defense, including judgments from the Kerala High Court, Gujarat High Court, Allahabad High Court, and Rajasthan High Court. However, the adjudicating authority found these case laws not applicable to the current case, as the facts and circumstances differed significantly. The adjudicating authority emphasized that the appellant’s situation did not align with the principles established in the cited cases.Conclusion:The adjudicating authority upheld the tax and penalty imposed, rejecting the appellant’s claims of a subsequent sale in transit and the applicability of cited case laws. The authority found that the goods were not accompanied by valid documents at the time of interception, and the appellant’s contentions were deemed afterthoughts. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was rejected, affirming the original order.