M S Steels Vs Commissioner of Kerala State GST (GSTAT Thiruvananthapuram Bench)
Summary: The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench, considered whether penalty under Section 129 of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017 could be imposed where goods were transported without an e-way bill on account of an internal stock transfer between registered premises of the same assessee.
M/s M.S. Steels, a partnership firm dealing in steel goods, transported steel goods on 13.06.2022 under Delivery Challan No. M120 from its own premises to its own godown. The movement was between registered premises of the appellant under the same GSTIN. The vehicle was intercepted by Mobile Squad No. II, Thiruvananthapuram, and the goods were detained under Section 129(1) on the ground that no e-way bill was available. A penalty of Rs.1,34,640, comprising CGST of Rs.67,320 and SGST of Rs.67,320, was imposed under Section 129(3), without any tax demand. The appellant paid the full penalty to secure release of the goods. Its first appeal before the Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Thiruvananthapuram, was dismissed by Order-in-Appeal No. GSTA No. 77/2022 dated 02.11.2022.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended principally that the movement was an internal movement between locations of the same GSTIN, supported by a delivery challan, and did not constitute an outward taxable supply. It argued that the expression “tax payable” in Section 129(1) could not be considered independently of the charging provisions. According to the appellant, Section 9 applies to intra-State supplies and a taxable event must first exist under Section 7. Since the movement involved only the appellant, with no second person or entity and no consideration, there was no supply and consequently no tax payable on the movement.
