Case Law Details
K.B Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (GST Appellate Authority, Himachal Pradesh)
In the view of above discussions I am of considerate opinion that the penalty imposed in the instant case under section 129 was unwarranted. GST Council vide circular No 64/38/2018 dated 14th September, 2018 and the HP circular no. 12-25/2018-19-EXN-GST-(575)-6009-6026 dtd 13th March 2019 valid from 14-09-2018 in para 5 provides that in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated in case of minor mistakes like error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number. Further Para 6 of the said circular states that in case of minor errors mentioned in Para 5, penalty to the tune of Rs. 500/- each under section 125 of the CGST Act and the respective HPSGST Act should be imposed (Rs.1000/- under the IGST Act) in FORM GST DRC-07 for every consignment. Further, the submission of Ld. respondent that the circular of CBIT dtd 14-09-2018 and the circular under the HPGST act is advisory in nature and not implementable by the proper officer is not acceptable. The said circular and the subsequent notification under the HPGST Act have to be followed and the benefit cannot be denied to the appellant for paltry errors of two digits in the vehicle number. The e-way bill has been duly , generated and no mistake has been found in all other information entered in the EWB. The respondents have also not been able to prove beyond doubt nor submit any substantial evidence that the appellant was adopting the system of wrong mentioning of vehicle numbers in the EWB as their modus operandi to evade taxes.
Therefore, keeping in view the above stated facts the orders of ACST&E, Chamba are set-aside on the ground that the standard operating procedure mentioned in circular No 64/38/2018 dated 14th September, 2018 and the HP circular no. 12-25/2018-19-EXN-GST-(575)-6009-6026 dtd 13th March 2019 valid from 14-09-2018 was not taken into consideration while imposing penalty in the instant case. The additional demand deposited by the appellant may be refunded and the penalty of Rs 500/- under SGST and Rs 500/- under CGST under section 125 of CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 is imposed on the taxpayer in accordance to GST Circular.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF GST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HIMACHAL PRADESH
At the outset, I would like to make it clear that the provisions of both the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (thereinafter referred to as HPGST Act and CGST Act respectively) are the same except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the HPGST Act would also mean a reference to the corresponding similar provisions under the CGST Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.