TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also recorded on 30.11.2018. The goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancies were found:- (a) E-way bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM. MOV-01 and MOV-02 were served accordingly. The person in charge of the vehicle provided an e-way bill at the physical verification stage. After verification it was found that the said e-way bill updated with the conveyance No. RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.19 PM i.e. time of interception. 2.2. In view of the above, the impugned goods and the conveyance used for the movement of goods were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act' Act 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the State/Union Territory Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 or under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with sub section (3) of Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing an order% of detention in FORM GST MOV 06 and the same was served on the person i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant as can be verified from timely filing of periodical GSTR-1, which in itself is a very conclusive evidence for establishing payment of duty for the goods under investigation. Hence, the demand of duty and penalty as imposed in the impugned order are totally unwarranted and not tenable in the eyes of law. The Government aims at enhancement of 'Ease of Doing Business', however such superfluous riders attached to what would be called a valid E-way Bill by the GST officers hampers this initiative. (iv) that Vehicle number was subsequently updated in the E-way Bill due to change of Truck carrying the goods. The adjudicating authority has given a finding that the Appellant did not present a valid E-way Bill as mandated by Rules 138 of the CGST Rules and instead 'cited other documents which were not relevant, solely on a presumption that vehicle number was updated at the time of interception, which is apparently cot correct. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the vehicle was intercepted at 05.19 PM on 30.11.2018 but valid E-way Bill was not generated on or before the time of interception, and LGEIL updated the vehicle number after the interception....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f penalty. Given that the traders are facing difficulty in accessing E-way-Bill on the common portal, the delay was a mere technical breach and a liberal view in favour of the appellant must be accepted. The appellant has also submitted various case laws in support of their contention which may be summarised as under: Modern Traders V State of U.P. [2018 (14) GSTL 184 (ALL.)] = 2018 (5) TMI 1030 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Raj Iron & Building Materials V UOI [2018 (12) GSTL 19 (All.)] = 2018 (1) TMI 949 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Axpress Logistics (P) Ltd., V UOI reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 34 (Allahabad) = 2018 (12) TMI 68 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Shaurya Enterprises V State of UP reported in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 48 (Allahabad) = 2018 (10) TMI 1237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. Rajavat Steel & Another V State of UP & 3 Others, [2018 (18 GSTL 814 (All)] = 2018 (9) TMI 1767 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Board Circular No,64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018. M/s Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut 2005 TIOL-118 SC-CX = 2005 (9) TMI 331 - SUPREME COURT 4. Personal Hearing in the case was conducted on 13.03.2020. Shri Jatin Harjai, Advocate and Miss Neha Sethi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill No.731043011329, which got generated at 04:38 PM along with packing list having complete detail which is required Under Section 68 of the CGST Act read with Rule 138A of CGST Rules, 2017. Subsequently they dispatched the goods from their warehouse to Customer. As per Section 68 of the CGST Act read with Rule 138A of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Rules) requires that the person in-charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding Rs. 50,000/- should carry a copy of documents viz., Invoice/Bill of supply/ delivery challan/bill of entry and a valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification. In case such person does not carry the mentioned documents, there is no doubt that a contravention of the provisions of the law takes place and the provisions of Section 129 and Section 130 of the CGST Act are invocable. Further, it may be noted that the non-furnishing of information in Part B of Form GST EWB-01 amounts to the e-way bill becoming not a valid document for the movement of goods by road as Explanation (2) to Rule 138 (3) of the CGST Rules, except in the case where the goods are transported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansporter and packing list was also accompanying the goods. In so far as E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM, the appellant has explained and I also find that the vehicle of the Driver was carrying the E-way Bill No.731043011329 in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ14-GF-9189 in place of vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831 due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter,' the transporter has placed another vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GF-6831 in place of Registration No. RJ-14-GF-9189. As soon as the mistake came to the notice of the appellant the same mistake was rectified by the appellant and got generated the E-Way Bill at 05.19 mentioning therein the vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831. In view of above, I find that all the necessary statutory requirement under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules was fulfilled by the appellant except mentioning corrected vehicle number at the time of interception, though this mistake was corrected soon after it came to notice. Thus, there appears no ill intention to evade the tax and just mere technical mistake. 9, In the instant case before....