TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In-Charge, of the vehicle was 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 Services Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancy was found :- (a) E-way bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.18 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-6858 at 05.28 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.18 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 Services Tax Act, 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the State/Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 741043010569 1348 RJ 14-GF-6858 (iii) that there is no contumacious conduct on part of 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 Rule 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 not correct. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the vehicle was intercepted at 05.18 PM on 30-11-2018 but valid E-way Bill was not gener....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for doubting the authenticity of E-way Bill, resulting to suppression of facts so as to justify the detention of conveyance and imposition of 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) G.S.T.L. 184 (All.)] Raj Iron & Building Materials v. UOI [2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 19 (All.)] Axpress Logistics (P) Ltd. v. UOI reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 34 (Allahabad) = 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 794 (All.) Shaurya Enterprises v. State of UP reported in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 48 (Allahabad) = 2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 378 (All.) Rajavat Steel & Another v. State of UP & 3 Others [2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 814 (All.)] Board Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, dated 14-9-2018. M/s. Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut - 2005-TIOL-118-SC-CX = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 149 (S.C.). 4. Personal Hearing in the case was conducted on 13-3-2020. Shri Jatin Harjai, Advocate and M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... E-way Bill No. 741043010569, which got generated at 04.37 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 Services 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 tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds, tax invoice number as well as the name of the buyer or the goods including his registration number under the GST Act; and the transport receipt of the transporter 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 05.18 PM, the appellant has explained and I also find that the vehicle of the Driver was carrying the E-way Bill No. 741043010569 in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ14-GF-6858 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. RJ14-GF-6705. 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 05.28 P.M. mentioning therein the Vehicle Registration Number RJ-14-GF-6858. 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 ....