2018 (7) TMI 1097 – MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 310 (M. P.) – Non-filing of part B of E-way bill – Inter and Intra State Supply of Goods or Services – Rule 138 and Section 68 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and M. P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 – case of petitioner is that due to technical error, Part-B of the e-way bill cannot be updated – demand of GST with equal amount of penalty – petitioner placed reliance on the Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP & others [2018 (5) TMI 455 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and submitted that in identical circumstances, the Division Bench found that there was no ill intention at the hands of the petitioner nor the petitioner was supposed to fill up Part-B giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in the vehicle, which is meant for transportation to the same to its end destination.
–
Held that:- In the case
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for quashment of order dated 30.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 – GST Appellate Authority & Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Indore and order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Indore wherein demand and penalty imposed by the respondent No.3 has been upheld and directed the petitioner to pay the amount of ₹ 1,32,13,683/-. Relevant part of the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.3 reads as under :- 2. This order has been challenged by filing an appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 30.05.2018 came to the conclusion that the petitioner has violated the provisions of Section 68 r/w Rule 138 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and M. P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and dismissed the appeal. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Private Limited company engaged in the business
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
by the proper officer at any place, he may require the person to charge of the said conveyance to produce the documents prescribed under the said sub-section and devices for verification, and the said person shall be liable to produce the documents and devices and also allow the inspection of goods. From perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the government is empowered in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding such amount as may be specified to carry with him such documents and such devices as may be prescribed. 6. In the light of the power conferred under Section 68, the vehicle of the petitioner company was checked on 27.04.2018. On enquiry, the driver (person incharge of a conveyance) of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-47-C-2647 produced the bill and challan, but eway bill on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner transporter company who was transporting the goods from Pune(Wadki), Maharashtra to Noida via Indore and othe
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
de Product Description Quantity Taxable Amount Rs. Tax Rate (C+S+I+Cess) 30049086 10976.00 2226598. 00 0+0+12+0 Net Taxable Amount : 2226598.00 CGST Amount ₹ 0.00 SGST Amount ₹ 0.00 IGST Amount ₹ 267191.52 Cess Amount ₹ 0.00 4. Transportation Details 36AADCG2096A1ZY & GATI-KINTETSU EXPRESS PRIVATE Transporter ID & Name : LIMITED Transporter Doc. No. & Date : 229076616 & 25/04/2018 5. Vehicle Details Mode Vehicle/Trans Doc No. & Dt. From Entered Date Entered By CEWB No. (if any) Road MH14EM1313 Pune 25/04/2018 07.49 PM 36AADCG2 096A12Y 1410467481 Road MH14EM1313 Bhursungi 25/04/2018 07.43 PM 36AADCG2 096A12Y Road MH04CG8538 & 229076818 & 25/04/2018 Wadki 25/04/2018 03.26 PM 27AAECA9 456D1ZM 8. In the light of Section 164 of the M. P. Goods and Service Tax Act, the State Government has framed the M. P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 which were further amended vide notification dated 07.03.2017 and the amendment came into force w.e.f.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
registered. The petitioner submitted its reply by stating that due to technical error, Part-B of the e-way bill cannot be updated. 12. Learned adjudicating Authority considering the fact that the petitioner has failed in performing the statutory provisions, penalty was imposed, which was assailed by filing an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the respondent No.2. 13. The stand of the respondents is that the petitioner company is a leading transportation company and the explanation submitted by him that due to technical error, Part-B of the e-way bill cannot be updated has not been accepted by the authority because the portal of the goods or service tax provides for an option of grievance in case the petitioner was having any problem in updating the Part-B of the e-way bill. No such grievance has been raised by the petitioner and he has never given any written grievance so that the grievance with regard to the updating the technical error could not have been considered. 14. It
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ncluding transportation charges), during Inter and Intra State of Supply of Goods or Services from Wadki, Maharashtra to Noida were accompanied by e-way bill The respondent No.2 has directed for physical verification. On physical verification, respondent No.3 has found the alleged irregularity that Part-B of the e-way bill was incomplete and, therefore, he has detained the vehicle as well as the goods by passing an order under Section 129 (1) of the Act. by which he assessed the value of the goods. 18. Consequently, a notice under Section 129(3) of the Act has been issued by which he has directed the petitioner to pay the same towards the tax liability as well as the same amount towards penalty. 19. On 04.05.2018, an order was passed and being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he filed an appeal, which was also dismissed and, thereafter, instant writ petition has been filed. 20. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Authority was that there was no intention on the part of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e vehicle, which is meant for transportation to the same to its end destination. 22. In the case of VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the distance was within 50 kilometeres and, therefore, the petitioner therein was not under an obligation to fill the Part-B of the e-way bill and the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rightly quashed the order. 23. In the present case, the distance was more than 1200-1300 kilometers and it is mandatory for the petitioner to file the Part-B of the e-way bill giving all the details including the vehicle number before the goods are loaded in the vehicle. Thus, he admittedly violated the provisions of the Rules and Act of 2017 and, learned Authority rightly imposed the penalty and directed the petitioner to pay the same. The order is not in violation of any of the provisions of the Rules and Act of 2017. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Ta
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =