Appeal allowed, penalty imposed for technical breach under CGST Act.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. A penalty of Rs. 15,000 was imposed on the appellant under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017, due to a technical breach in updating the vehicle number, promptly corrected without any intention to evade tax.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of E-way Bill at the time of interception.
2. Compliance with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules.
3. Allegation of evasion of tax liability.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of E-way Bill at the time of interception:
The conveyance carrying goods was intercepted on 30-11-2018 at 05:18 PM, and it was found that the E-way Bill was not available at that time. The E-way Bill was provided at the physical verification stage, showing it was updated at 05:28 PM, ten minutes after the interception. Thus, the vehicle did not have a valid E-way Bill at the time of interception.

2. Compliance with Rule 138 of the CGST Rules:
The appellant argued that the goods were accompanied by a Tax Invoice, E-way Bill, and Consignment Note as prescribed in Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. Despite the initial E-way Bill being generated at 04:37 PM, the vehicle number was updated at 05:28 PM due to a change in the vehicle by the transporter. The adjudicating authority found that the valid E-way Bill was not available at the time of interception, but the appellant contended that the delay was due to a sudden change in the vehicle plan, which was promptly corrected.

3. Allegation of evasion of tax liability:
The appellant argued that there was no contumacious conduct or intention to evade tax, as evidenced by their timely filing of periodical GSTR-1. The delay in updating the vehicle number was a technical breach without any intention to evade tax. The adjudicating authority did not find any evidence of tax evasion, and the appellant's compliance with other statutory requirements was noted.

4. Imposition of penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty equal to 100% of the tax amount, which was challenged by the appellant. The appellant cited various case laws and argued that the delay in updating the vehicle number was a technical breach. The appellate authority found that the appellant fulfilled all necessary statutory requirements except for the timely update of the vehicle number. Given the prompt correction of the mistake and the lack of ill intention to evade tax, the appellate authority set aside the impugned order and reduced the penalty to Rs. 15,000 under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. A penalty of Rs. 15,000 was imposed on the appellant under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the technical nature of the breach and the prompt correction of the mistake. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---