Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles Vs Commissioner of Kerala State GST (GSTAT)
Summary: The GSTAT considered appeals filed by M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Automobiles against the penalty of Rs. 1,38,706/- imposed under Section 129(1) and confirmed under Section 129(3) of the CGST/KGST Acts, 2017. The appellant, engaged in trading automobiles and spare parts, had transported goods accompanied by two tax e-invoices but without an e-way bill. The goods were detained on 18-4-2022, and Form GST MOV-07 was issued on the same date. The goods and conveyance were released on 20-4-2022 against Bond and Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1,38,706/-. However, Form GST MOV-09 confirming the penalty was passed only on 04.06.2022, 47 days after the notice. Before the GSTAT, the appellant contended, inter alia, that the order was barred by the mandatory seven-day period under Section 129(3), while the Department submitted that limitation had not been raised before the First Appellate Authority and was being introduced for the first time at the second appellate stage. The GSTAT held that the dates of MOV-07 and MOV-09 were undisputed facts already on record and therefore consideration of the statutory limitation did not amount to raising a new factual ground for the first time. Examining Section 129(3), the GSTAT held that the use of the expression “shall” signified that the prescribed timeline was mandatory. It relied upon decisions including Mohd Hazzak Lohar, Allcargo Logistics Limited, Deepam Roadways and Pawan Carrying Corporation, among others. The GSTAT further found that the appellant had supplied the goods under valid e-invoices, had filed GST returns and paid the appropriate GST, and found no mens rea on the appellant’s part to evade tax merely because an e-way bill had not been prepared along with the e-invoice. Since the Respondent failed to issue the penalty order within the mandatory seven-day period, the GSTAT held that MOV-09 dated 4-6-2022, issued 47 days after MOV-07 dated 18-4-2022, was illegal and without jurisdiction. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside, the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, and the Respondent was directed to release the Bank Guarantee immediately on receipt of the order.
Cases Discussed
- Mohd Hazzak Lohar & Others Vs Commissioner of State Tax, J&K – 2026 (7) TMI 1769 – J&K and Ladakh HC
- M/s. Allcargo Logistics Limited Vs State of Gujarat – 2025 (12) TMI 1732 – Gujarat HC
- Khatu Enterprises Vs State of Gujarat – 2025 (10) TMI 1341 – Gujarat HC
- Deepam Roadways Vs Deputy State Tax Officer, Chennai – (2023) 3 Centax 37 (Mad.)
- Pawan Carrying Corporation Vs State of Bihar – (2024) 16 Centax 405 (Pat.)
- K.P. Sugandh Ltd Vs Chief Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha – (2025) 26 Centax 62 (Ori.)
Decision on Section 129(3) Limitation
The GSTAT first considered the Department’s objection that the appellant had raised the issue of the seven-day limitation for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that Form GST MOV-07 had been issued on 18-4-2022 and Form GST MOV-09 had been issued on 4-6-2022, and that these dates were already on record and had also been recorded by the First Appellate Authority.
