TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icle bearing Registration No. NL- 01/AC-2258, which was intercepted by the Mobile Squad Officer at Barajore Toll Plaza on 06.10.2024 at about 08:20 PM for verification of the goods under Section 68(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 being transported therein. 1.4 At the time of interception, the driver produced TCI Express Bilty/LR No. 216000889193 dated 03.10.2024, along with Tax Invoice No. 26-24/25 dated 03.10.2024 issued by M/s VLM Group, Maharashtra, Bhumi World Industrial Park, Bhiwandi, Thane, Maharashtra, having GSTIN 27ABCFM6789K1ZJ, and the corresponding E-Way Bill No. 271836772276 dated 03.10.2024, generated at 05:18 PM. The goods were being transported to M/s Jedux Parenteral Pvt. Ltd., Barabanki, having GSTIN 09AAECJ0930B122. The consignment consisted of 4 Nos. of FFS Machines and their parts, having a total value of Rs.2,08,86,000/- including tax. 1.5 During verification of the documents, the Mobile Squad Officer noticed that the tax invoice accompanying the goods did not contain a QR Code/Invoice Reference Number (IRN) contemplated under Rule 46(r), nor did it contain the declaration prescribed under Rule 46(s) and that the driver was also unable to produce an elec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the notices, neither the appellant nor its authorised representative/advocate appeared on the scheduled dates, and no adjournment application was filed. 1.12 The First Appellate authority referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in Karmaxx Infotech v. Assistant Commissioner, W.P. No. 18311 of 2023, decided on 20.06.2023, concerning the consequences of failure to respond or participate in the proceedings within the prescribed time. 1.13 The First Appellate Authority observed that the appellant had failed to satisfactorily explain the disputed issue and had not produced the necessary supporting evidence. It was also noted that the appellant or its authorised representative did not appear for personal hearing despite repeated opportunities. 1.14 The First Appellate Authority considered the fact that the vehicle was detained because the goods were being transported against a manual tax invoice, whereas, according to the departmental records, the supplier was required to generate an e-tax invoice/e-invoice under the applicable provisions of Rule 46 read with Rule 48 of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017. The authority held that the failure to generate the required e-tax i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ack. Date: 08.10.2024 Time 18:27:00 IRN generated with e- Invoice details having Quick Response Code within 5 days i.e. within time specified (30days ) in Advisory of GST Council : Time limit for reporting Invoices on IRP Portal dtd. 13.09.23 ( & modified time to time) 8 10.10.2024 TMP ID No. 092400037458TMP generated Date Fixed for compliance 11.10.2024 9 10.10.2024 DRC-01 No. ZD091024152358E dtd. 10.10.2024 demanding Penalty of Rs. 6372000 issued / MOV-07 Time 19:54:38 10 10.10.2024 Challan CPIN 24100900101582 CIN : ICIC24100900101582 for Rs. 63,72,000/- deposited Time 20:10:11 11 10.10.2024 MOV-05 ZD091024153092R issued 2.4 The appellant admitted that the requirements relating to the issuance of a tax invoice under Section 31 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 had otherwise been complied with. It was submitted that the tax invoice, E-Way Bill and LR containing the relevant particulars were accompanying the goods and that the movement of the consignment was duly disclosed through the E-Way Bill. 2.5 The appellant admitted that the E-Invoice was not generated before commencement of transportation. However, an E-I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary to the facts and material available on record, as the submissions, documentary evidence and judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant were allegedly not duly considered. It was therefore submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order were unsustainable and that the penalty proceedings deserved to be set aside. 3. Submission of Respondent 3.1 The Department submitted that the appellant was covered by the mandatory e-invoicing provisions under Rule 48(4) of the CGST Rules, 2017. However, at the time of interception on 06.10.2024, the goods were accompanied only by a manual tax invoice, E-Way Bill and LR, and the tax invoice did not contain the prescribed IRN/QR Code. 3.2 It was contended that generation of an e-invoice was a mandatory statutory requirement and that the ordinary tax invoice could not be treated as a substitute for an e-invoice where Rule 48(4) was applicable. Consequently, transportation of the goods without the prescribed e- invoice constituted a contravention of the GST provisions. 3.3 The Department submitted that the e-invoice was generated only on 08.10.2024, i.e. after interception of the vehicle on 06.10.2024. Such subsequent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... generated before commencement of movement as contemplated under Rule 48(4) of the CGST/UPGST Rules, 2017. 4.3 Section 31 of the GST Act, 2017 requires a registered person supplying taxable goods involving movement of goods to issue a tax invoice before or at the time of removal of the goods for supply to the recipient. Rule 46 of the GST Rules prescribes the particulars which are required to be contained in such tax invoice. 4.4 In the present case, we find that it is not disputed that Tax Invoice No. 26-24/25 dated 03.10.2024 had been issued by the appellant. The invoice identified the supplier, the recipient, description of goods, value and tax liability. The goods were also accompanied by the corresponding E-Way Bill No. 271836772276 dated 03.10.2024 and TCI Express Bilty/LR No. 216000889193 dated 03.10.2024. 4.5 Rule 48(4) of the GST Rules prescribes the manner in which an invoice is required to be prepared by a notified class of registered persons by obtaining an Invoice Reference Number by uploading the information contained in the invoice in FORM GST INV-01 on the Invoice Registration Portal. The relevant provisions also contemplate generation of the QR Code and au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 is an enforcement provision concerning goods and conveyances while in transit where the statutory conditions specified therein are attracted. The mere establishment of a procedural irregularity does not dispense with the requirement of determining whether the particular facts justify the consequence imposed under Section 129. 4.14 In the present case, the department has established that the e-invoice was not available at the commencement of transportation. However, the following circumstances are equally established from the record: (a) a tax invoice dated 03.10.2024 existed; (b) the E-Way Bill was generated on 03.10.2024 at 05:18 PM; (c) the LR/Bility was available; (d) the goods were identifiable as 4 FFS Machines and parts; (e) the consignee was identifiable as M/s Jedux Parenteral Pvt. Ltd., Barabanki; (f) the taxable value and IGST liability were disclosed; (g) the e-invoice was subsequently generated with a specific IRN and acknowledgement number; and (h) no discrepancy in the description, quantity or value of the goods has been brought on record. 4.15 We rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble All....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4.21 We find that Section 129 proceedings may legitimately be attracted where non- compliance in transport documents is accompanied by substantive discrepancies, such as mismatch between goods and documents, absence of genuine invoice, incorrect description or quantity, undervaluation, fictitious consignor/consignee, invalid E-Way Bill, or other circumstances establishing an attempt to avoid payment of tax. 4.22 No such substantive discrepancy has been established in the present case. The department has relied principally upon the absence of the IRN/QR Code and the failure to generate the e-invoice before commencement of transportation. 4.23 The appellant deposited Rs.63,72,000/-, being 200% of the IGST involved, for release of the goods and conveyance. 4.24 Such payment was made during the detention proceedings and cannot, without more, be treated as a voluntary admission of fraud or intention to evade tax. The appellant has consistently challenged the penalty and has pursued appellate remedies against the order. 4.25 We find that the First Appellate Authority passed the impugned order ex-parte after recording that the appellant did not appear despite opportunities....