TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the GST Department at Maharashtra having GSTN -27AABHS5612R1ZM being manufacturer of rubber related goods. Petitioner is also involved in transportation of goods to various States. On various occasions, petitioner supplied goods to M/s Prakash Asphalting and Tolls Highway India Ltd. which is registered separately with GST at State of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh having two separate GST Numbers for both the States. 3. In the case in hand, petitioner had to supply the goods to M/s Prakash Asphalting and Tolls Highway India Ltd. in State of Madhya Pradesh but inadvertently and erroneously generated the Tax Invoice in the name of unit registered at Uttar Pradesh. During transportation of goods, respondent No.3 detained the goods as well as vehicle of the transporter on the ground that place of supply mentioned in the E-way bill is different from the actual place of receiver and therefore, imposed penalty alleging suppression of sales and seized vehicle of the transporter vide order dated 02-07-2019 by the office of Joint Commissioner, Anti Evasion Bureau, Gwalior (Commercial Tax Department of Madhya Pradesh). 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02-07-2019, petitioner prefe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as Jhansi (U.P.). whereas consignment was stopped at Morena (M.P.). Even if in e-way bill there is clerical error in filling up of form, petitioner is liable for penalty as per Section 129 of the CGST Act. There is no distinction carved out regarding clerical mistake or a mistake committed inadvertently in filling up of form. Therefore, petitioner cannot wriggle out from the liability. In e-way bill place of destination was mentioned as Jhansi whereas the goods were seized at Morena and therefore this error of petitioner clearly invokes Section 129 of the CGST Act which deserves no interference. Intention of petitioner can only be gathered through its conduct only. Since Section 129 of the CGST Act does not contemplate distinction between inadvertent and advertent error, therefore, authorities were right in invoking Section 129 of the CGST Act against the petitioner. 10. It is further submitted that during enquiry, driver of the vehicle made the statement that delivery of goods is to be made at Morena (M.P.) and not at Jhansi (U.P.) whereas the documents were for transportation of goods from Maharashtra to Uttar Pradesh. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authority has no power to condone the delay after expiry of four months as stipulated in Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the SGST Act. Therefore, appeal was dismissed on account of delay. 16. So far as ground raised by the petitioner regarding non affording of opportunity of hearing is concerned although Section 107(4) and (8) of the SGST Act provides provision for opportunity of hearing to the appellant and if it is seen in juxtaposition, then it appears that opportunity of hearing is required to be given to an appellant who files appeal. In the present context, notice of hearing dated 17-02-2020 (Annexure P/5) and different e-mails dated 18-05-2020, 26-10-2020 and 24-11-2020 indicate that petitioner had filed the written submissions in the pending appeal for perusal of authority and for record purpose before the appellate authority. Petitioner did not press for hearing, rather pressed for consideration of written submissions and tried to press for hearing on 28.11.2020, when final order was passed. Understandably, petitioner wanted early decision so that issue of release of attached vehicle be resolved. 17. E-mail dated 26-10-2020 (Annexure P/7) and e-mail dated 24- 11-2020 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as Quasi-judicial circles stopped and in its place virtual hearing, written submissions or submissions through emails were innovated or at least preferred. Since department might not have innovated concept of virtual hearing like in Courts, therefore, confined the scope of hearing through written submissions and e-mails. Therefore, from the record, it appears that pre-decisional hearing was afforded to the petitioner and petitioner filed written submissions also in the pending appeal for perusal and for record purpose. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner does not get any opportunity of hearing. 19. Appeal got dismissed on the point of limitation as preliminary ground for rejection of appeal and admittedly, petitioner filed appeal belatedly. Therefore, for personal hearing appellate authority could not have waited for normalcy to resume. On the basis of written submissions and record available, appellate authority passed the impugned order dated 28-11-2020 which is otherwise also stands to judicial scrutiny. 20. In relation to scope of personal hearing, the Apex Court in the case of Carborundum Universal Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, 1989 Supp (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full-fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on. 39. We are not concerned with these aspects in the present case as the issue relates to giving of notice before taking action. While emphasizing that the principles of n....