High Court fined GST Officer with Rs.5000/- for detaining goods and vehicle in transit with proper e-way bill and tax invoice.

E-way generated for a Biil-To-Ship-To transaction by seller is valid and no separate e-way is required to be generated by the buyer again for same goods. 

Petitioner:

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered proprietorship in UP (i.e. Buyer / Petitioner).

Petitioner received an order from a party in UP (i.e. Consignor). In turn, the petitioner placed its purchase order to a seller from Maharastra (i.e. seller), who sent the goods through Invoice No. SC/1994 19-20 dated 31.1.2020, mentioning the name of the petitioner (buyer) under the head of buyer and consigned directly to consignor in UP on the tax invoice.

Further the e-way bill was also generated where the seller's name, buyer's name and consignor's name was also mentioned. The said e-way bill was valid for a period up to 15.2.2020

The said consignment was onward journey from Maharastra to UP. On reaching at Kanpur, the petitioner has only handed over to its Invoice no. 636 dated 31.1.2020 without taking the delivery of goods. He further submits that e-way bill generated by the seller at Maharastra was valid up to 15.2.2020, therefore, for the same transaction two e-way bills cannot be generated because the goods was in transit and the delivery was not taken.

After reaching the said goods in the State of U.P., the same was intercepted by Mobile Squad at Kanpur and detained the vehicle on 7.2.2020.

On detention of goods, show cause notice was issued under Section 129(3) of the Central G.S.T. Act for determining the tax and penalty in respect of release of the goods and vehicle in Form GST-MOV-07 dated 7.2.2020.

The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice but the respondents without considering the same, passed the order dated 8.2.2020 demanding the petitioner to deposit the tax and penalty as determined. Against the order of tax and penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.2.2020. Hence the present petition.

He further submitted that there was no contravention of the provisions of the Act as the goods in question were duly accompanying the requisite documents as required under the Act. He further submitted that the respondents were not justified in detaining the goods and demanding the amount of tax as well as penalty for release of the goods and vehicle. He further submitted that the appellate authority has erred in not considering the case in its true perspective and in the absence of any mens rea for evading the payment of tax, the action of the respondents is illegal. The order passed by the authorities below cannot be sustained. He prays for quashing the impugned order.

Revenue:

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the order of the authorities below. He submitted that as per the provisions any amount more than Rs. 50,000/- as mentioned in the tax invoice requires for generation of e-way bill. The tax invoice raised by the petitioner bearing tax Invoice no. 636 dated 31.1.2020 was not supported by e-way bill. 

Held:

taxreply.com © 2024. All Rights Reserved