Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Integrated Constructive Solutions Vs Vs ACST&E-cum-Proper Officer (GST Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh)
Appeal Number : Appeal No. 018/2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/02/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Integrated Constructive Solutions Vs Vs ACST&E-cum-Proper Officer (GST Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh)

It appears that there is no dispute regarding quantity of goods and further all concerns documents were placed before the proper officer. It is a fact that the E-way Bill for the material in question was generated at 05:52 pm on 1-11-2018 and further updated on 5-11-2018 at 06:38 pm in which all relevant detail were entered. Due to break down of material carrying vehicle the material were transhipped to another vehicle. The E-way Bill of the consignment which was produced before the proper officer pertains to the previous vehicle. The only mistake the E-way Bill part-B was that the number of the vehicle in which the material was transhipped had not been entered at the time of inspection of the vehicle. The appellant updated the E-way Bill and the number of the second vehicle was updated in the part-B of the E-way Bill at 11:52 am dated 6-11-2018. Despite the updation of the part-B of EWB the learned Respondent detained the vehicle and imposed tax/penalty to the tune of Rs. 16,28,23,728.

The appellant has declared the consignment on 1-11-2018 at 05:52 p.m. and further updated on 5-11-2018 at 06:38 pm. which makes it clear that there was no intention to evade tax. The learned Respondent also failed to prove that the appellant changed the vehicle to evade tax. In my opinion the proper officer has acted in haste and levied tax/penalty without giving proper opportunity of being heard as mentioned in section 129(4) reads as under —

“No tax, interest or penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the person concerned on opportunity of being heard.”

The learned respondent has imposed penalty in a mechanical manner and has ignored the corrected and updated E-way Bill as produced by the appellant within two hours of the detaining of the vehicle. Therefore, the tax/penalty under section 129(3) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 imposed is unsustainable.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031