Case Law Details
In Re Om Dutt S/O Shri Bal Krishan (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 goods in question was generated at 09:43 pm on 05-11-2018 in which all relevant detail were entered. Due to break down of goods carrying vehicle the goods were transshipped 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 goods were transshipped 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. Despite the updation of the part-B of EWB the Ld. Respondent detained the vehicle and imposed tax/penalty to the tune of Rs. 1,43,432/-
The appellant has already declared the consignment on 05.11.2018 at 09:43 p.m. which makes it clear that there was no intention to evade tax. The Ld. 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).
The Ld respondent has imposed penalty in a mechanical manner and has ignored the corrected and updated e-way bill as produced by the appellant. Therefore, the tax/penalty under section 129(3) of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 imposed is unsustainable.
As there is no doubt that the taxpayer has made procedural lapse and violated the provisions of the CGST/HPGST Act, 2017 and HPGST Rules 138(10).
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
