TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 143
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the petitioner, learned AGA for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the impugned material on record will indicate that on 17.01.2022, the goods of the petitioner were being transported from Delhi to Bangalore, in the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-01/AE-3323, when they were intercepted on 18.01.2022 by respondent No.3, who initiated proceedings under Section 129(3) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017and passed an order dated 20.01.2022 levying CGST penalty of Rs. 3,37,738/- and SGST penalty of Rs. 3,37,738/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 2 - the First Appellate Authority, who passed an order dated 09.06.2022 allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner is as under: "ORDER UNDER SECTION 107(11) OF THE KGST & CGST ACT, 2017 This appeal is filed under section 107(1) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Act, 2017 (herein afterwards referred to as 'Act') by M/s. PLAUNSHEE, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') against the order dated: 20.01.2022 passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST and KGST Act, 2017 and read....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Registration to include Additional Place of Business could not be done in time due to the COVID situation in the Country. 4. The CTO has erred by not taking a lenient view in the matter and applying Circular No.64/38/2018-GST dt.14.09.2018 as this amounts to minor mistake & therefore penalty of Rs.1000/- should be applicable. 5. The CTO has erred by not uploading the required Notices/Orders on the common GSTN portal in violation of CIRCULAR No. GST- 02/2018-19 dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Prayer 1. The above mentioned CTO Order be set-side. 2. The amount paid be refunded to the appellant at the earliest. 3. Heard and perused the records & grounds of appeal. Facts of the case and grounds urged by the appellant are examined with reference to the provisions of the Act and law. After examining the case, my findings are as follows. 4. The goods conveyance bearing No. KA01AE3323 was intercepted and inspected by the Commercial Tax Officer (Vigilance)-11, Bangalore on 18.01.2022 at 11.55 am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional submission made, the reliance placed on various Court decisions, the copy of e-way bill submitted and other related details have been examined with reference to the concerned penalty records, para wise remarks submitted by the respondent and the relevant e-way bill provisions and penalty provisions of GST Law. 7. Section 68 of the Act provides for inspection of goods in movement which reads as under: - (1) The Government may require the person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. (2) The details of documents required to be carried under sub-section (1) shall be validated in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) Where any conveyance referred to in sub-section (1) is intercepted by the proper officer at any place, he may require the person to charge of the said conveyance to produce the documents prescribed under the said sub section and devices for verification, and the said person shall be liable to produce the documents and devices and also allow the inspection of goods. 8. Provisions un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at 06.51 pm, at the time of dispatch from the premises of the supplier at ICD White Field, Bangalore, Karnataka-560071 to ship address at Banjara Layout Main Road, Horamavu, Bangalore, Karnataka-560043. The validity of the e- Way Bill was upto 18.01.2022. No intention to evade tax as appellant raised invoice along with e way bill long before. That the E-way Bill was generated well in advance and therefore not possible to cancel the E-way Bill to evade tax and the transaction in any case was reported and therefore tax cannot be saved/evaded as alleged and under the circumstances no tax/penalty can be levied reliance can be placed on Tvl. R.K. Motors v. State Tax Officer, (Madras High Court) That the small and technical error does not warrant penalty. The documents attached establish one thing beyond doubt that the documents were generated and were available and there was no intention for tax evasion. 10. In Satyendra Goods Transport (2018-30-GSTJ-387) the Hon'ble High Court had held that "the assertion neither that the IGST has already been paid, has also not been denied by the opposite party nor that both the consignor and consignee are registered dealers. More....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... questionable High Court meticulously and correctly examined and found no fault or intent to evade Goods in question could not be taken to the destination within time for reasons beyond the control of respondent-taxpayer including traffic blockage and due to agitation - State alone remains responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic - No question of law relating to operation and effect of Section 129 involved - Considering department's conduct and harassment faced by taxpayer, costs of Rs.59,000/- imposed in addition to costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the High Court - Special Leave Petition filed by department dismissed - Section 129 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Section 129 of Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The above judgments very much applicable to the case in hand; 13. The Hon'ble High Court of Tripura in the case of M/s. Sri Gopikrishna Vs. The State of Tripura and Others (WP(C) 317 of 2020) (07/01/2021), has held that "the petitioner has committed gross negligence by not upgrading or amending the e-way bill when the regular e-way bill had expired in transit. The e-way bill was upgraded or amended when the consignment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioners in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 which prescribes the validity of an e-way bill with the extension of further period by eight hours after the expiry. The failure to consider the petitioners case in the light of the provisions of Rule 138(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 has resulted in an improper and untenable order." Further the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Karnataka in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemanth Motors vide Writ Appeal No. 381 of 2021 (T-Res) dated 27.07.2021 has upheld the single bench judgment of the above by stating that "having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge." 16. Detention of goods on the ground that the vehicle took a different route or reached wrong destination. Held: The High Court observed that allegation of 'wrong destination' or that the driver has taken a different route is not a ground to detain the vehicle carrying the goods or levy tax or penalty. It was held that the fact that the vehicle was found at anot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....scussions, it is summarised that: 1) The e-Way Bill No. 721234899023 dated 17.01.2022 generated by M/s Lotus Kaleen Pvt. Ltd., with GSTIN: 07AAACL5989Q1ZK at 6.51 PM which was valid up to 18/01/2022 along with tax invoice No. LKPL/21-22/1830 dated 17.01.2022 with invoice value at Rs. 22,14,062-00 (inclusive of tax). Issued by the consignor M/s. Lotus Kaleen Pvt. Ltd., and billed to M/s. Plaunshe, Bangalore, the appellant. 1 Tax Invoice Number Tax invoice No. LKPL/21- 22/1830 dated 17.01.2022 with invoice value at Rs. 22,14,062-00 (inclusive of tax). 2 e-Way Bill Number 721234899023 dated 17.01.2022 3 e-Way Bill valid upto 18/01/2022 4 Conveyance vehicle Number KA 01A E3323 5 Date of Interception of vehicle 18.01.2022 at 11.55 am at Horamavu, From the above, it could be seen that at the time of interception of the vehicle there was a valid e-way bill exist. However, the respondent has cited the reason for detention and levy of penalty was that the address mentioned in the tax invoice and e Way Bill is M/s. Plaunshe, No. 36, Horamavu, Agara Village, Banjara Layout Main Road, Horamavu, Bangalore 560 043 but goods wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent petition. 5. As can be seen from the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by respondent No. 2 - the First Appellate Authority, the explanation offered by the petitioner for unloading the goods at the additional place of business, which was later registered by the petitioner has been accepted by respondent No. 2 - First Appellate Authority. Under these circumstances, merely because a different view was possible, it cannot be said that respondent No. 1 - the Revisional Authority was justified in reversing the well-considered order passed by respondent No. 2 - the First Appellate Authority especially when no prejudice or hardship can be shown to have been caused to the respondents nor any monetary loss to the respondents warranting respondent No. 1 to set aside a well-considered and well-reasoned order passed by respondent No. 2 - the First Appellate Authority and consequently, in the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that respondent No. 1 clearly fell in error in reversing the order of respondent No. 2 - the First Appellate Authority and the impugned order deserves to be set aside by restoring the order passed by respondent No. 2 ....