TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a reference to the corresponding similar provisions under the CGST Act. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 24-09-2018 passed by the Asst. Commissioner State Taxes & Excise (ACST&E)-cum-Proper Officer, Baddi Circle-II, BBN, District Solan vide which an additional demand of was created against the appellant under Rule 138 of HPGST & CGST Rule 2017. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: a. Godrej Consumer products Ltd, Village Katha, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of various personal care and home insecticide products and duly registered with GST Department of H.P. having GSTIN No. 02AABCG3365J3ZS and paying applicable taxes under GST Act 2017. b. In the present case Appellant had placed a purchase order for one of raw materials called Joss powder (HSN:12119029) to M/s. Godrej consumer Products Limited, RS NO. 74/4 & 74/6, Nallur Village Mannadipet commune Puducherry-605107 (GSTN34AABCG3365J1ZN) and the supplier had issued invoice No. PY0322001529 dated 07-09-2018 for the said material indicating therein details of goods and the taxable value of the goods to the tune of Rs. 15,47,967 on which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted by the Cd. AC when the vehicle has been intercepted and seizure order has been passed. Further Ld. AC also noticed that it was a typographical error by the appellant before authority during the hearing is enclosed herewith, however, Ed. AC has not perused and considered these facts while passing the order dated 24-09-2018(hereinafter referred as to "impugned order" and confirmed the tax demand and penalty to release the goods. g. The appellant has no other option, in order to release the consignment, the Appellant has deposited IGST of INR 77,399/- and penalty of INR 77,399/- (total of INR. 1,54,798/-) vide challan No. CPIN 18090200019788 dated 19-09-2018 under protest and got the goods released from the department on 20-09-2018. h. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant is constrained to file the present appeal before your goodself for fair and equitable justice. However since the Appellate Authority was constituted, the Appellant had approached Hon'ble High Court of HP by way of filling writ petition. The Hon'ble High Court has directed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within one month from the date of order 31-12-2018 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cuments relating to such goods and conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be released,- (a) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to one hundred per cent of the tax payable on such goods and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent of the value of goods or twenty five thousand rupees. whichever is less, where the owner of the goods comes forward for payment of such tax and penalty; (b) on payment of the applicable tax and penalty equal to the fifty per cent of the value of the goods reduced by the tax amount paid thereon and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent of the value of goods or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such tox and penalty; and (c) Upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such goods or conveyance Shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... III. The e-waybill shall not be valid for movement of goods by road unless the information in Part-B of FORM GST EWB-01 has been furnished except in the case of movements covered under the third. proviso to sub-rule (3) and the proviso to sub-rule (5), IV. where on e-way bill has been generated under this rule, but goods are either not transported or are not transported as per the details furnished in the e-way bill, the e-way bill may be cancelled electronically on the common portal within twenty four hours of generation of the e-way bill: Provided that an e-way bill cannot be canceled if it has been verified in transit in accordance with the provisions of rule 138B: provided further that the unique number generated under sub-rule (1) shall be valid for a period of fifteen days for updation of Part B of FORM GST EWB-01. In case any person does not carry the above mentioned documents or not followed the procedure prescribed under e-way bill rules, a contravention of the provisions of the law would be considered to take place and the provisions of section 129 of the CGST/HPGST Act are invocable, However, in the instant case, the procedure for E-way bill is duly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant places reliance on the decision in case of Indus Towers Limited Vs. The Asst. State Tax Officer (2018) = 2018 (1) TMI 1313 - KERALA HIGH COURT wherein Kerala High Court held that the power of detention contemplated u/s 129 of the CGST and SGST Acts can be exercised only in respect of goods which are liable to be confiscated under Section 130 of the CGST and which are liable to be confiscated u/s 130 of the CGST and SGST Acts. The relevant extract of the said decision is read as under: "A combined reading of Section 129 and 130, especially the provision contained in sub section (6) of Section 129 indicates that the detention of the goods is contemplated under the statutes only when it is suspected that the goods are liable to confiscation. This aspect is seen clarified by the Central Board of Excise & Customs in FAQs published by them on 31-03-2017 also, Section 130 dealing with the confiscation of goods indicates beyond doubt that the confiscation of goods is contemplated under the statutes only when a taxable supply is made otherwise than in accordance with the provision contained in statutes and rules made there under with the intent to evade payment of tax. If t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....details mentioned in the invoice are consistent with the invoice and the consignment. Accordingly, the impugned order has overlooked the said circular and imposed tax and penalty illegally. 12.10 that the Appellant has placed reliance on the decision in case of SABITHA RIYAZ VS THE UNION OF INDIA (WP (C) 34874 OF 2018) = 2018 (11) TMI 213 - KERALA HIGH COURT Wherein Hon'ble Kerala High Court directed the State GST officials to consider release of goods in view of the CBIC Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, dated 14th Sep 2018 since the discrepancy in the E-way Bill was due to a typographical error. The operative portion of the said decision is reproduced below. "I reckon the distance between Kerala and Uttarakhand is a matter of record and thus verifiable. As / have already noted, the e-way bill showed the distance as 280 kms, instead of 2800 kms-one zero missing. This cannot be anything other than a typographical error, and a minor at that. Under these circumstances, I hold that the 11^th respondent will consider the petitioner's request for release in terms of the circular, expeditiously. With these observations, I dispose of the writ petition." In light....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd part-B by the transporter of GST EWB-01 doted 07-09-2018 at 05:29 PM in e-way bill bearing No. 551053261727 and the validity had given only for 1 day, it is the mistake of supplier and transporter. Subsequently e-way bill electronically but consignor, consignee and transporter failed to do so. It is mentioned here that the validity period of e-way bill either four hours before expiry or after four of expiry of e-way bill according to the notification no EXN-F (10)-14/2018 Dated: Shimla 22nd March, 2018. However despite having sufficient time neither the taxable person not transporter did not do anything to extent the validity of the said e-way bill. Additionally in the course of inspection in transit, the person-in-charge of the vehicle produced expired e-way bill. For disposal of the case, the representative of the firm admitted itself that it is procedural lapse, the taxable person and transporter could not revalidate the validity e-way bill. Hence it is the violation of Rule 138 of CGST/HPGST rule, 2017 and section 129 of HPGT/CGST Act, 2017 and section 20 of IGST Act, 2017. Hence the penal action has been taken correct and as per law. Reply to Pt. No. 12.7: Mentioned in e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the destination at Uttarakhand was shown as 280 Kms, instead of 2800 Kms. To have this evident error corrected, the petitioner could have taken recourse to Rule 138 (9) of the CGST Rules. That correction, however, could be possible only within 24 hours. That the said case is not related to present case. The present case is related to the expiry of the e-way bill which was produced by the person-in-charge of the vehicle during inspection of the consignment. It is crystal clear the violation of rule 138 of CGST/HPGST Rule, 2017 and section 129 of CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 and section 20 of Act, 2017. That in view of these facts, the appeal of the taxable person is liable to be rejected. xxxxxxx 4. I have heard both the parties and also have perused the record available of the case and it is revealed that due to a typographic error while generating E-way bill, the petitioner mentioned approx distance between Puducherry to Himachal Pradesh as 20 Kilometers instead of 2000 Kilometers. As a result, a validity of one day has been calculated by the E-way bill portal instead of twenty days and the E-way bill subsequently got expired on the very next day i.e on 08.09.2018. The co....