AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 898
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of buying and selling plastic granules (PP). Petitioner's firm had purchased 20,000 Kilograms of plastic granules from one M/s. H.K. Trading Company, New Delhi to be sent to M/s. Priaymbada Industries Private Limited, Gorakhpur. While the goods were on their way to Gorakhpur through Vehicle No. U.P. 53 DT 3455, on 11.08.2019 the vehicle in question was intercepted by the mobile squad of Tax Department at Sikandara Toll Plaza, and when the documents were inspected various discrepancies and anomalies were found in the documents pertaining to the goods loaded in the vehicle. The vehicle in question was detained and notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 20 of the I.G.S.T. Act, 2017 read with Section 68 (3) of the C.G.S.T. Act. A reply was submitted, but the same not being found in order, on 14.08.2018 the authorities concerned imposed a tax of Rs. 3,52,800/- and also levied penalty of the same amount of Rs. 3,52,800/-. The said order was served upon the driver of the vehicle and the entire amount of Rs. 7,05,600/- was deposited on the same date itself i.e. 14.08.2018 and the goods and vehicle in question were released. 3. It appears that after a delay of about eigh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the documents pertaining to the goods loaded in the vehicle. According to him validity of the E-way bill has been provided under Rule 138 (10) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, and the E-way bill pertaining to the transit in question was issued on 10.08.2018 and was valid till 13.08.2018 i.e. for four days and the distance between New Delhi and Gorakhpur being more than 800 KM cannot be completed within the period of four days mentioned in Eway bill. Further, the vehicle number in question and other information was also wrongly mentioned in the tax invoice pertaining to the transit, as was required by the department, which is available on the departmental portal. 7. Sri Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, further submitted that as there is violation of the statutory provisions specified under Section 129 (1) of the Act, detention order (MOV-6) was passed followed by a show cause notice under Section 129 (3) of the Act. The show cause notice was served upon the driver of the vehicle and thereafter penalty order was passed on 14.08.2018 affirming the amount of tax and penalty, which was deposited by the petitioner and the goods and vehicle were released. He further submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Similarly, in a matter relating to Central Excise the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise Noida Vs. M/s. Punjab Fibres Limited, JT 2008 (2) SC 458 held that the reference which ought to have been made within 180 days from the date of order passed by the Tribunal is served on the Commissioner or any other authority and any delay in making the reference application cannot be condoned. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Kakinada and others Vs. M/s. Glaxo Smit Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020, wherein the Apex Court had taken the view that no appeal can be filed beyond the statutory period and no indulgence can be shown by the High Court. Relevant paragraph nos. 18 and 19 are extracted here as under; "18. Suffice it to observe that this decision is on the facts of that case and cannot be cited as a precedent in support of an argument that the High Court is free to entertain the writ petition assailing the assessment order even if filed beyond the statutory period of maximum 60 days in filing app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te authority on the ground that it had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days, when in fact, the order examines the cause set out by the respondent and concludes that the same was unsubstantiated by the respondent. That finding has not been examined by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order at all, but the High Court was more impressed by the fact that the respondent was in a position to offer some explanation about the discrepancies in respect of the volume of turnover and that the respondent had already deposited 12.5% of the additional amount in terms of the previous order passed by it. That reason can have no bearing on the justification for non-filing of the appeal within the statutory period. Notably, the respondent had relied on the affidavit of the Site Director and no affidavit of the concerned employee (P. Sriram Murthy, Deputy Manager-Finance) or at least the other employee [Siddhant Belgaonker, Senior Manager (Finance)], who was associated with the erring employee during the relevant period, has been filed in support of the stand taken in the application for condonation of delay. Pertinently, no finding has been recorded by the High Court that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e condoned as the remedy of appeal is creature of statute and if period of 90 days is provided for challenging the penalty order, the same cannot be condoned and extended by the High Court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. Further, the petitioner neither in the present writ petition nor in the grounds of appeal before the first Appellate Authority had disclosed the fact that during which period the order dated 14.08.2018 was not reflected on the web-portal of the department and when did he came to know that the appeal could be filed offline. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner it is only submitted that the demand order as well as penalty order dated 14.08.2018 was not uploaded but no specific denial has been made to the averment made by the department that all the orders are uploaded on the web-portal of the department and similarly the demand order as well as penalty order dated 14.08.2018 passed against the petitioner was also uploaded on the web-portal. 15. Moreover, in the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has tried to build up a case that the order was served upon the driver of the vehicle in question which will not amou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue) Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Order No. 09/2019-Central Tax New Delhi, the 03rd December, 2019 S.O.(E).--WHEREAS, sub-section (1) of section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (12 of 2017) (hereafter in this Order referred to as the said Act) provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under section 107 or section 108 of this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal; AND WHEREAS, sub-section (3) of section 112 of the said Act provides that the Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of State tax or Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any order passed by the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the....