TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023. 3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 18.06.2022 passed by the respondent no. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as well as the impugned order dated 25.11.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 confirming the demand/penalty of Rs. 5,51,602/- on the petitioner. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having GSTIN No. 19AAECS9421J1ZZ having its registered Office at 2nd Floor, 5 SS Chamber, Chittaranjan Avenue, Jamuria, West Bengal and engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of industrial grade steel components, i.e., channel, beams, etc. The petitioner through tax invoice dated 17.11.2021 transp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rules, including part A & B, which was valid upto 22.11.2021. The transporter, namely, Shiv Om Logistics, issued consignment note SO 401 in favour the petitioner with recipient's details as the consignee of goods and further reflecting the destination as Fazalganj, Kanpur. The said document along with goods was on its journey to its destination, when it was intercepted by the respondent no. 3 and the driver of the truck provided all documents, i.e., tax invoice, e-way bill, consignment note, etc. On intimation that the e-way bill, which was accompanying the goods have already been cancelled by the purchaser itself, the petitioner inquired and got to know as to why the recipient has cancelled the e-way bill due to certain discrepancies ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that section 129 of the CGST Act empowers for seizure and release of goods and section 130 of the CGST Act empowers for levy of penalty. He further submits that since there was no intention to evade payment of tax, the penalty ought to have been levied under section 122 (ix) of the CGST Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others Vs. M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Private Limited & Another [SLP (C) No. 21132/2021, decided on 12.01.2022]. He prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders by submitting that at the time of interception, the e-way bill was cancelled by the purchaser and the petitioner has fai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rchaser. Though the e-way bill was cancelled by the purchaser, but it is stated that the same has not been intimated to the petitioner. Once the goods were seized and the petitioner, after inquiring the fact from the purchaser about the attending fact which led to cancellation of e5 way bill by the purchaser, it was communicated to the respondents, but not being satisfied, the goods were detained and the seizure order was passed. While issuing notice or seizing or passing the demand order under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, no observation had been made with regard to intent to evade payment of tax. Section 68 of the CGST Act requires the person in-charge of the vehicle carrying certain documents accompanying the consignment of goods above....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30 deals with confiscation of goods or conveyance and levy of penalty. Both the sections revolve around a similar issue and provide for the proceedings available at the hands of the proper Officer upon him having found the goods in violation of the provisions of the Act, Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the CGST Act being one of them. Upon a purposive reading of the sections, it would sufice to state that the legislation makes intent to evade tax a sine qua non for initiation of the proceedings under sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act. 12. This aspect is no more res integra and the same stands finalized in the judgement of the Apex Court in M/s Satyam Shivam Papers Private Limited (supra); wherein, it has been categorically stated that....