TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....19 (Annexure-A) by the second respondent. 2. The petitioner asserts that it imports walkie-talkie sets only for supply to the Police and the other Government Security Departments across India. A consignment of these walkie-talkies is imported from M/s JVC Kenwood Corporation, Japan and dispatched to Bangalore Airports Custom Authority from Singapore Airport. The petitioner has obtained clearance from the Customs Authority after paying applicable IGST and basic customs duty as provided in the Bills of Entry. However, the present dispute is because the CTO has commenced proceedings under section 129 of the KGST Act culminating with the impugned orders after the Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance-40), Bengaluru (for short, 'the CTO') detained one of the vehicles viz., the vehicle bearing bearing Registration No KA-04-AB-9470 (for short, 'the vehicle') hired by the petitioner for transportation of these walkie-talkie sets (for easy reference, 'the consignment'). 3. According to the CTO, the driver on interception of the Vehicle could produce only two Commercial Invoice copies and two Delivery Challan copies but could not furnish the prescribed e-way bills. The consignment could no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losing an affidavit of the person in charge of the consignment which is an elaboration of the earlier response. 6. The CTO has not accepted the petitioner's response being of the opinion that the vehicle was intercepted at 2:45 p.m., and e-way bills were not generated before the commencement of the movement of the vehicle. The CTO has concluded that the driver's statement that he left the Bangalore International Airport at around 3:15 p.m. due to VIP movement and that the Endorsements were served at the premises of CTO Enforcement Office, Devanahalli at 4:15 p.m. cannot be believed because the "Good's delivery place" and the "Passengers boarding/de-boarding places" at the Airport are different. The details maintained by M/s Menzies Aviation Security show that the vehicle entered airport for loading at 2:12 p.m. and exited at 2.33 p.m and therefore the driver's (Person-in-charge) statement that he left the Airport premises at 3:15 p.m., cannot be accepted. The CTO has consequentially issued the impugned Orders under Section 129(3) of the KGST Act demanding tax and penalty as contemplated under Section 129(1)(a) of the CST Act. 7. In the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r asserts that the petitioner's specific case is that: (a) The loading of the consignment was completed around 2:50 p.m., (b) The e-way bills were generated between 3:06 p.m. and 3:12 p.m., and because the goods were being transported for shipment purposes to the Transporter's Godown located within the prescribed distance, the e-way bills were not uploaded, (c) When the CTO intercepted the vehicles, the driver of the vehicle showed e-way bills on his mobile but Form -Part B was not mentioned. (d) The CTO directed the driver to take the vehicles to the CTO Enforcement office, and the vehicles reached this office at around 4:15 p.m. when the endorsement was issued. 10. The learned counsel emphasises that if these circumstances are established there cannot be any allegation of infraction of Rule 138 of the KGST Rules or the notification issued thereunder, and the conclusion that the petitioner would be liable for consequences envisaged under the provisions of section 129(3) of the KGST Act cannot be sustained. Both the CTO and the appellate authority (the second respondent) have relied upon correspondence with M/s Menzies Aviation Security, a sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e vehicle to the CTO Enforcement Office, Devanahalli because Form-Part B of the e-way bills were not populated, and the endorsements in the prescribed form were served at 4:15 p.m. when the vehicles reached the CTO Enforcement Office premises. 14. The petitioner to substantiate its aforesaid case proposes to rely upon the data available on Internet while the CTO relies upon correspondence with M/s Menzies Aviation Security. The documents relied upon by the petitioner are not accepted, and the reason assigned by the respondents for non-accepting the petitioner's case and the documents, in this Court's considered opinion, is rooted inseparably in the reliance upon the data furnished by M/s Menzies Aviation Security in response to the communication by the CTO. 15. The provisions of section 129(4) of the KGST Act mandates that no tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard. This stipulation that no tax or interest or penalty shall be determined unless the person concerned is given an opportunity of being heard incorporates the seminal principle of fair play which is inherent in the establishe....