TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (2) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion (3) of Section 68 of the 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 or under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancies were found :- Valid E-way bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception. Vehicle number not updated in the E-way Bill. 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 same was served on to Shri Mukesh Kumar Saini Driver/Person-in-charge of the conveyance on dated 7-6-2019. Further, incorporating some points, a notice C.No. V(CGST-B)15/Misc E-way case/19-20, dated 7-6-20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der is wrong and deserves to be quashed. * that the Learned Proper Officer has grossly erred in passing the impugned order as the same has been passed without conducting any enquiry for arriving at correctness of the facts and submissions as explained/submitted by the appellant in support of his case. It is not incumbent upon the proper officer that he has to levy tax and impose penalty straightway without verification or examination of the facts and circumstances of the matter. It is totally against the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. * that the impugned order is an illegal order as the same has been based on the arbitrariness and illegal collection of tax and penalty under Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Learned Proper Officer has first got deposited the entire proposed amount of tax and penalty and thereafter passed the impugned order on same day. The deposition of demand prior to determination of the liability against the appellant has established the otherwise intention of the Learned Proper Officer and made the entire impugned order as an illegal order. It has never been the intention of the legislature to get deposition of the demand with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the consignee, there remain no reasons to seize the goods and the vehicle. The order of seizure of goods and show cause notice for levy of penalty, in a mechanical manner, without incorporating reasons for not accepting the objections, thus violating the requirements of Section 129(4) was quashed. VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Another - (2018) 30 GST & VR 60 (Allahabad HC) = 2018 (17) G.S.T.L. 191 (All.), dated 13-4-2018 (b) On the issue of imposition of penalty for wrong mentioning of GSTN and mobile number of consignee and non-production of e-way bill at the time of Inspection It was held that show cause notice was not sustainable if quantity and quality of goods consigned and payment of CGST and SGST is not disputed and E-way Bill produced a day before passing seizure order. The petition was allowed and seizure order as well as show cause notice set aside. It was directed that goods be released immediately permitting the petition to deliver the same to the consignee. Bhumika Enterprises v. State of U.P. - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pronouncements are also being submitted herewith for your ready reference and record. * that instant case is of purely technical and venial defect in nature which was not with the deliberate intention to avoid or evade any tax under the provisions of law as the Attached LR, BE, INVOICE is belongs to Jaipur branch office as 100% operation take place from Jaipur office and was to be delivered at Banipark Jaipur but during delivery the goods were detained in transit close to Jaipur office on the ground that the goods were likely to be transport to Kishangarh instead of Jaipur as the E-way bill was auto generated for Kishangarh and appropriate correction was not done. The appellant explained the entire things/happenings to the Learned Proper officer during the proceedings but the Learned Proper Officer did not even think it proper to conduct enquiry in the matter before proceeding further. Thus in the absence of any enquiry the principles of natural justice have been violated by the Learned Proper Officer which vitiates the entire proceedings as illegal. * that the present case is fully covered with the Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, dated 14-9-2018 issued by GST Policy wing of Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... GST EWB-01, electronically, on the common portal along with such other information as may be required on the common portal and a unique number will be generated on the said portal : (2) Where the goods are transported by the registered person as a consignor or the recipient of supply as the consignee, whether in his own conveyance or a hired one or a public conveyance, by road, the said person shall generate the e-way bill in FORM GST EWB-01 electronically on the common portal after furnishing information in Part B of FORM GST EWB-01. (3) Where the e-way bill is not generated under sub-rule (2) and the goods are handed over to a transporter for transportation by road, the registered person shall furnish the information relating to the transporter on the common portal and the e-way bill shall be generated by the transporter on the said portal on the basis of the Information furnished by the registered person in Part A of FORM GST EWB-01 : Provided further that where the movement is caused by an unregistered person either in his own conveyance or a hired one or through a transporter, he or the transporter may, at their option, generate the e-way bill in FORM GS....