TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ST Act and GST Act"). 4. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this petition are as under:- 4.1 The petitioner is a private limited company having place of business at Sun Court, Near Sola Flyover, S.G. Road, Sola, Ahmedabad 380 063. The petitioner is inter alia an authorized distributor of Mercedes-Benz cars. The petitioner purchased the cars from the manufacturing company and thereafter sells the cars. 4.2 The petitioner purchased car bearing chassis number WDD2131046L028488 from the manufacturing company i.e. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. on 9.12.2019. 4.3 While the head office of the petitioner is located in Ahmedabad, the petitioner has a branch in Thane in the State of Maharashtra, which is also duly registered under the Central/Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017. The petitioner also has a branch in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 4.4 The branch of the petitioner in Maharashtra had requested the head office in Gujarat for delivery of the car in question for further sales in Maharashtra. Upon such request, the petitioner generated stock transfer invoice, wherein value was mentioned as cost price. 4.5 The Petitioner contacted its transporter for transport of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... GST Acts or any intention to evade tax. Even qua vehicle number was concerned it was explained that this was because of breakdown of the vehicle in transit but the same did not have any bearing on the validity of the transaction. 4.13 The petitioner produced extract of sales register for 10.01.2020 as well as invoice for repair of the original vehicle as forwarded by the transporter along with the aforementioned reply. 4.14 Thereafter the petitioner wrote an email to the 2nd respondent authority on 15.01.2020 relying upon circular dated 14.9.2018 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, wherein it was clarified that in cases where there were minor errors in the e-way bill the goods were to be released on payment of token penalty under Section 125 of the GST Acts and that proceedings under Section 129 of the GST Acts were not to be initiated. 4.15 The 2nd respondent-authority responded by email dated 15.01.2020, wherein he conveyed that he had passed order demanding tax and penalty under Section 129 of the GST Acts (annexed at Annexure B) and that the benefit of circular dated 14.9.2018 was not available to the petitioner since the case of the petitioner did no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sportation was without support of e-way bill and only mismatch that was noticed was in vehicle number for which also the petitioner explained that this was due to the breakdown of the original truck and invoice showing repair of the truck has forwarded by the transporter was also produced before the respondent no. 2-authority. 10. It was submitted that the demand of tax and penalty raised by the respondent no. 2 solely on the ground that the vehicle number as mentioned in the e-way bill was incorrect is wholly arbitrary and illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 129 of the GST Act as the said provision is only to ensure that no unaccounted movement of goods takes place. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Sheth that the e-way bill for a particular transaction is not generated and it is possible to suspect that the transaction was not intended to be accounted for, however, in the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the invoice and e-way bill was accompanying the goods and the chassis number of the car being transported to the branch of the petitioner in Maharashtra was mentioned in the e-way bill and therefore, it was beyond doubt that the transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the petitioner. 12. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Dhaval Vyas for the respondent no. 2-authority submitted that the impugned order is passed after proper verification and application of mind and on the basis of the circular no. 64/38/18 dated 14.09.2018, which provides that for non-furnishing information in e-way bill in part V-B of Form GST EWB-01 amounts to the e-way bill becoming not a valid document for the movement of goods as per explanation of Rule 138 (3) of the CGST Rule except in case whether the goods are transported for a distance of upto 50 kilometers within the State or union territory or from the place of business of the transporter to the place of business of the cosigner or the consignee as the case may be. It was, therefore, submitted that admittedly in part-B of the e-way bill, the number of the truck was not mentioned correctly and therefore, the e-way bill was held to be an invalid document. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas further relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no. 2:- "9. From the above, it is clear that the situations mentioned at Para 5 of Circular No. 64/38/2018-GST, as discussed above, is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ightly invoked in the present case and the applicable taxes (i.e. CGST, SGST, Cess) and penalties (i.e. CGST, SGST, Cess) is also rightly imposed and confirmed. 12. The present order in FORM GST MOV-09 dated 14.01.2020 has been passed after following the due process and principles of natural justice. Shri Nitesh Jain, Managing Partner of M/s. N.J. Jain & Associates, Chartered Accountants, 407, Aaryan Workspaces, Opp. Gala Business Centre, H.L. College Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009, Gujarat, on behalf of the supplier viz. M/s. Landmark Cars Private Limited, Sun Court, Survey No. 383/P, FP-37 & 38, Near Sola Flyover, S. G. Road, Ahmedabad-380063 having GSTIN No. 24AABCL1862B1Z2 (hereinafter referred to as "supplier" for the sake of brevity), appeared for personal hearing on 13.01.2020 at 04.00 PM. Shri Nitesh Jain produced Letter of Authority dated 11.01.2020, wherein, he is duly authorized by the aforesaid supplier to represent them (supplier) in connection with their (supplier's) e-way bill matter and produce the accounts and documents connected therewith and that the explanations and statements of Shri Nitesh Jain will be binding on the supplier. Shri Nitesh Jain said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are being initiated for every mistake in the documents mentioned in para 3 above. It is clarified that in case a consignment of goods is accompanied by an invoice or any other specified document and not an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may be initiated. 5. Further, in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia, in the following situations: a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct; b) Error in the pin-code but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill; c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct; d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the e-way bill; e) Error in 4 or 6 digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate of tax mentio....