TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1413
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... charge of change of destination of delivery. An order in form GST MOV-09 dated 23/12/19 was issued levying IGST and penalty under section 129 of the KGST / CGST Act. The goods and vehicle were released after remitting IGST and penalty equal to tax. The Appellant filed an appeal against the said order before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State GST department, Kollam (Appellate Authority) who rejected the appeal. The present appeal has been filed against this order. 2. Submission of the Appellant 2.1 The alleged statements recorded from the driver and manager of the shop stated in the original order is not served to the appellant nor included in the order under dispute. The objection of the appellant against this statement is rejected by the first appellate authority on the ground that the appellant had not objected at the time of interception. The objection raised at the time of interception was ignored and the proceedings were completed. 2.2 As the statements recorded were not part of the proceedings, the order is bad in law. The absence of objections at the time of interception is not a reason to confirm the proceedings. 2.3 The change of route to the destination ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first time in appeal, is an afterthought and cannot invalidate contemporaneous evidence. c. Any suggestion, express or implied, that these statements were engineered, coordinated, or unreliable is answered by the simple fact that the departmental officer, the driver, and the shop manager share no relationship, no common motive, and indeed have interests running in different directions. The absence of any common thread linking these three sources is not a ground for suspicion - it is the very reason their evidence is entitled to be accepted. d. The first appellate authority correctly appreciated that silence at the time of interception, when the appellant's own agent (the driver) and the third party (the manager) were present and statements were being recorded in their presence, is a relevant circumstance going to the credibility of the belated challenge. This is not a case where an objection was raised at interception and thereafter ignored - no contemporaneous written protest or endorsement to that effect appears on the MOV records or the interception report. The First Appellate Authority's finding is a finding of fact based on appreciation of the record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate to erase that contravention, as rightly held by the First Appellate Authority. i. The Appellant's claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) in respect of the payment made under Section 129 on 23-12-2019 stands rejected and is not admissible in law. Section 17(5)(i) of the CGST Act, as it stood at the relevant time in 2019, specifically blocked credit of tax paid under Section 129, and the said unamended provision governs the transaction in question. The subsequent relaxation brought about by Section 119 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024 - which removed the reference to Section 129 from the purview of blocked credits under Section 17(5)(i) - is strictly prospective in operation and came into effect only with effect from 1st November 2024. It has no application, retrospectively or otherwise, to a payment made in December 2019, which continues to be governed by the unamended provision then in force. The Appellant's claim for credit of the IGST so paid is accordingly misconceived and is liable to be rejected in its entirety. j. The concurrent findings of the adjudicating authority and the First Appellate Authority are based on cogent, contemporaneous material - phy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iven proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. 4.4 Applying the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we find that in this case the SCN is vague, lacks details and does not cite the specific statutory provisions alleged to have been contravened. We find therefore that the proceedings are vitiated by this breach of basic principle of natural justice . 5.1 We find that the charge against the appellant is that of unloading the goods, at the premises of M/s. Michel Steels, Chiriyakolla as against the destination mentioned in the e-way bill, which is the registered office of M/s Excel Steels at Chengannur. We also find that this charge is sought to be proved by statements purported to have been recorded from Shri Vijaykumar (the driver of the vehicle) and Shri Sarath, (Manager of M/s Michel Steels - at whose premises the goods were allegedly being unloaded). The appellant has claimed that "The alleged statements recorded from the driver and manager of the shop stated in the original order is not served to the appellant nor included in the order under dispute". On perusal of the documents pertaining to the case, we find no evidence that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a. The adjudicating officer had not afforded a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing before imposing penalty and demanding tax b. They were not provided an opportunity to cross examine the informants (persons whose statements were recorded) by the adjudicating authority before concluding the proceedings. 7.2 We find that these allegations which had substantial merit ( refer para 5.1 above) were not discussed / analyzed by the Appellate Authority who brushed them aside brusquely with the observation that: "Even though the appellant now questions the statement made by the driver, the manager of the consignee, there was no dispute raised at the time." 7.3 In view of our finding of fact that the appellant was not heard before passing of the OIO (refer para 6.1 above) we wonder as to when the appellant could have raised a dispute on the issue. 7.4 We also find that the second statement which has been recorded is not that of the manager of the consignee (as stated in the OIA) but that of M/s Michel Steel ( where the goods were allegedly being unloaded) and find that the appellate authority has got her facts mixed up. 7.5 We also find that the ....