Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (7) TMI 1097

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... dated 04.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Indore wherein demand and penalty imposed by the respondent No.3 has been upheld and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 1,32,13,683/-. Relevant part of the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 reads as under :- 2. This order has been challenged by filing an appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 30.05.2018 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 68 r/w Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and M. P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and dismissed the appeal. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lue exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. 6. In the light of the power conferred under Section 68, the vehicle of the petitioner company was checked on 27.04.2018. On enquiry, the driver (person incharge of a conveyance) of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-47-C-2647 produced the bill and challan, but eway bill on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner transporter company who was transporting the goods from Pune(Wadki), Maharashtra to Noida via Indore and other different places has not uploaded/updated the part-B of the e-way bill which is a required condition to be fulfilled in accordance with Rule 138(5) of the M. P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bhursungi 25/04/2018 07.43 PM 36AADCG2 096A12Y   Road MH04CG8538 & 229076818 & 25/04/2018 Wadki 25/04/2018 03.26 PM 27AAECA9 456D1ZM   8. In the light of Section 164 of the M. P. Goods and Service Tax Act, the State Government has framed the M. P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 which were further amended vide notification dated 07.03.2017 and the amendment came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2018 which substituted the earlier Rules of 138 by the new Rules. 9. As per Rule 138 of the Rules of 2017, any registered person who causes movement of goods or assignment valuation exceeding Rs. 50,000/- must upload the information in a shape of e-way bill containing Part-A and Part-B. Sub-caluse 5 of Rule 138 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has been raised by the petitioner and he has never given any written grievance so that the grievance with regard to the updating the technical error could not have been considered. 14. It is also stated by the learned authority that the petitioner is a National Level Courier company and engages the employees who are expert in uploading e-way bills. As per the Rules, it is a mandatory requirement that Part-B must be updated in the e-way bill and in case the Part-B is not updated, the e-way bill is not genuine/legal and therefore, it is not a minor mistake or cannot be treated as a technical error when there is an option of raising a grievance on the GST portal itself. 15. The Assessing Officer as well as the learned Authority rejected ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ter and Intra State Supply of Goods or Services. The goods loaded in the vehicle was for the purpose of transportation of goods from Wadki, Maharashtra to Noida and as such, the petitioner at the time of generation of national e-way bill could not fill the vehicle number in the Part-B due to inadvertence and it was a technical error therefore, the objection with regard to non-filling of the Part-B of e-way bill is nothing but a clear abuse of process of law. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP & others reported in (2018) 67 NTN DX 1 and submitted that in identical circumstances, the Division Bench foun....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....¤§à¤¾à¤¨à¥‹à¤‚ का उल्लंघन किया जिसके लिए एकीकृत माल सेवा कर अधिनियम 2017 की धारा 20 सहपठित केन्द्रीय माल एवं सेवा कर अधिनियम 2017 की धारा 129 एवं म.प्र. माल एवं सेवा à¤....