2023 (2) TMI 648

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(for short 'Proper Officer') (Annexure P-13) and that dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-18) whereby the order passed by the Proper Officer-cum-Excise and Taxation Officer (Annexure P-13) has been affirmed. The petitioner claims himself to be engaged in manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals. Petitioner is an Assessee under Goods & Service Tax Tariff-Goods. The goods belonging to the petitioner were apprehended while in transit in Vehicle No.HR-61C-7811 by the Proper Officer on 23.05.2018 at 11.15 PM. On the asking of the Proper Officer the person incharge of the conveyance i.e. Driver produced documents. Along with the tax invoices and delivery challans, following six E-way bills were produced :- "(a) E-way....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Number HR-61C-7811. Another discrepancy which was noticed was that in all the six E-way Bills, the name of the transporter was mentioned as M/s Patel Integrated Logistics Limited (Division PAF) GSTIN- 29AAACP6445K1Z1. Therefore, the Proper Officer issued Form GST MOV-2 (P-5) under Section 68(3) of CGST/HGST read with Section 20 of the IGST Act and carried out physical verification of goods." Consequently, the conveyance carrying the goods was detained under Section 129 (1) of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017. Order of detention was issued in the prescribed format vide Annexure P-7. Further notice in Form GST MOV-07 was issued on 28.05.2018 determining Tax and Penalty to the tune of Rs.43,85,068/-. The notice was duly served on the authorized rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bill. Thus she submits that in view of established fact that the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of Section 68 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017 and rule 138 of the 2017 Rules, no fault can be found with the orders passed by the authorities. She further submits that the petitioner cannot fall back upon rule 138(3) of the 2017 Rules as the goods were already handed over to the transporter at Kundli. She further submits that the distance between Kundli i.e. from where the goods started and Farukh Nagar, District Gurugram where the vehicle was intercepted is around 80 kms. which is beyond the exemption limit of 50 kms. as prescribed under rule 138(3) of the 2017 Rules. Counsel further submits that once the counsel for the petitioner he....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of the tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, and in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent of the value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward for payment of such penalty; (c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause (b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed: Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods. (2) [***]. (3) The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within seven days of such detention or seizure, specifyi....