TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 847
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Steel Re-rolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj). After recording the statement on 15.11.2019 of Driver and person In-charge of vehicle Shri Shakti Singh S/o Sh. Ram Singh, Village Chawndiya, Teh, Kekri, Ajmer, the goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') read with sub section (3) of Section 68 of the State/Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act or under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. On examination of the documents, the following discrepancies were noticed:- (i) The goods loaded in the vehicle bearing No. RJ 14-1G-7711 were covered under Invoice No. 1235 dated 14.11.2019 issued by M/s Pratap and Sons, A-264, Madri Industrial Area,Udaipur-313003 (GSTIN No.08AIKPA7138FIZD) having E way Bill No.731103481404 was meant for delivery to M/s Shri Nath Steel, Near Annapurna Nagar, Opp Bheru Ji Mandir, Jaitaran Pali- 306302 (GSTIN No.08BJZPK4880MIZ3). Instead, the goods were intercepted in front of the factory premises of M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj) which is completely off route a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case. * that the order is bad-law. No evasion of tax liability was there & all transactions were in between registered dealer. No tax and penalty even otherwise should be levied so as to avoid violation of double taxation on same goods of registered parties. There can not be double taxation as per articles of Constitution of India. There were proper E-way also with invoices. * that there is no restriction in movement goods in transit within stipulated time with proper invoice reach at final destination of delivery even otherwise. * that the assessee reserves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the date of hearing. * that the learned Asstt. Commissioner CGST Division Ajmer erred in not considering the detailed reply dtd. 22-11-19 showing the circumstances for diversion of Goods from Jaitaran to Ajmer with proper Invoice & E-way bill. There was subsequent sale in transit & hence forth the Goods moved for Ajmer instead of Jaitaran i.e the original consignee firm &/or purchaser who had sold the goods as subsequent seller to us & accordingly we were subsequent purchaser for which there was proper Invoice &/or E-way bill & the goods were lyi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated 14.11.2019 issued by M/s Pratap and Sons, A-264, Madri Industrial Area, Udaipur-313003 having E way Bill No. 731103481404 was meant for delivery to M/s Shri Nath Steel, Near Annapurna Nagar, Opp Bheru Ji Mandir, Jaitaran Pali-306302. Instead, the goods were intercepted in front of the factory premises of the appellant i.e. M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj) which is completely off route and no valid E way Bill in favour of impugned goods i.e. MS Scrap (7204), quantity 18150 Kg valued Rs. 3,86,595/- transported to the appellant i.e. M/s Mahesh Iron and Steel Re-rolling Mills, RIICO Industrial Area, Beawar Road, Ajmer (Raj) was available with the driver/person In-charge of the conveyance. In this regard, the contention of the appellant is that there was subsequent "sale in transit" and henceforth the Goods moved for Ajmer instead of Jaitaran, Pali i.e the original consignee firm or purchaser who had sold the goods as subsequent seller to the appellant and accordingly they were subsequent purchaser for which there was proper Invoice and E-way bill & the goods were lying in same vehicle which was transported from Udaipur to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to obtain a unique Radio Frequency Identification Device and get the said device embedded on to the conveyance and map the e-way bill to the Radio Frequency Identification Device prior to the movement of goods. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) of sub-rule (1), where circumstances so warrant, the Commissioner may, by notification, require the person-in-charge of the conveyance to carry the following documents instead of the e-way bill. (a) tax invoice or bill of supply or bill of entry; or (b) a delivery challan, where the goods are transported for reasons other than by way of supply. 10. I find that as per Rule 138A- (1) The person in-charge of a conveyance shall carry- (a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan, as the case may be; and (b) a copy of e-way bill in physical form or the e-way bill number in electronic form or mapped to a Radio Frequency Identification Device embedded on to the conveyance in such manner as may be notified by the Commissioner. In the instant case, I find that the E-way Bill No.731103481404 was generated on 14.11.2019 by M/s Pratap and Sons, A264, Madri Industrial Area, Udaipur-313003 was meant for de....