Neptune Sales Corporation Vs Additional Commissioner (GSTAT Lucknow)
Summary: The appeal was filed by M/s Neptune Sales Corporation against the appellate order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal-IV), Lucknow, which had dismissed GST Appeal No. 90/2024 for the year 2023-24 and affirmed the original order dated 19.01.2024 passed under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. The dispute concerned detention of goods and imposition of penalty of Rs. 2,51,196/- despite the goods being accompanied by a tax invoice, e-invoice and valid e-way bill. The goods were intercepted on 14.01.2024. The department relied on an earlier verification/location of the e-way bill at Banthara Bazaar, Kanpur Road, at about 04:15 A.M., followed by the location of the vehicle at Haj House, Lucknow, at about 12:45 P.M. on the same day, and consequently presumed that the goods were being re-transported using previously used documents.
The appellant contended that the goods were being transported for the first time with valid documents, that there was no evidence of contravention or mens rea, and that the detention, seizure and penalty were founded merely on suspicion and presumption. It was also submitted that the show cause notice could not be sustained without prima facie material supporting action under Section 129. The appellant relied on several judicial precedents, including Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner ST & Ors., the Supreme Court’s order dated 12.01.2022, Shri Surya Traders, Anandeshwar Traders, B.L. Agro Oils, Umacharan Shaw & Bros. and other authorities. TaxGuru’s reported material concerning Satyam Shivam Papers records the principle that tax-evasion intent cannot be presumed merely from circumstances surrounding an e-way bill.
