The excess quantity was supplied without declaring in the invoice with intent to evade the payment of tax therefore, the Section 130 of the Act was rightly invoked.
Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit — The appellant involved in trading of Stones of Marbles, Granite, his vehicle was intercepted on 14-9-2019 by the respondent on the ground that quantity loaded in the conveyance was found in excess than the quantity mentioned in the invoice. The goods and conveyance were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Act. The petitioner claimed the ownership of goods and deposited the tax, penalty and other charges against notice dated 16-9-2019 by creating DRC-03 and requested for release of goods. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 18-9-2019 confirmed the IGST Rs. 28,419/- along with equal penalty of Rs. 28,419/- and fine of Rs. 28,419/- in lieu of confiscation of Goods and also a fine of Rs. 28,419/- in lieu of confiscation of conveyance. The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport of goods were released after depositing the Tax, Penalty and fines. The appellant submitted appeal on various ground that objections filed against notice for confiscation of goods under MOV-10 was filed on 16-9-2019 but not considered while giving order under Form GST MOV-11; that the measurement taken by the respondent was wrong and unjustified as they have not been served with the calculation of the quantity of the goods; that the order in GST MOV-11 contains fine in lieu of confiscation of Goods and conveyance, however under Section 130 of Act, 2017 only one of the above can be imposed on the assessee. The appellate authority observed that the measurement of the impugned goods found in excess was taken in presence of Driver/Person In-charge of the vehicle and recorded on worksheet and finalized in the presence of Driver/Person-In- charge of vehicle, which was duly served to the Person In-charge of vehicle and he never objected it. The excess quantity was supplied without declaring in the invoice with intent to evade the payment of tax therefore, the Section 130 of the Act was rightly invoked.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
The excess quantity was supplied without declaring in the invoice with intent to evade the payment of tax therefore, the Section 130 of the Act was rightly invoked.
Section 129 and 130 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit — The appellant involved in trading of Stones of Marbles, Granite, his vehicle was intercepted on 14-9-2019 by the respondent on the ground that quantity loaded in the conveyance was found in excess than the quantity mentioned in the invoice. The goods and conveyance were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Act. The petitioner claimed the ownership of goods and deposited the tax, penalty and other charges against notice dated 16-9-2019 by creating DRC-03 and requested for release of goods. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 18-9-2019 confirmed the IGST Rs. 28,419/- along with equal penalty of Rs. 28,419/- and fine of Rs. 28,419/- in lieu of confiscation of Goods and also a fine of Rs. 28,419/- in lieu of confiscation of conveyance. The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport of goods were released after depositing the Tax, Penalty and fines. The appellant submitted appeal on various ground that objections filed against notice for confiscation of goods under MOV-10 was filed on 16-9-2019 but not considered while giving order under Form GST MOV-11; that the measurement taken by the respondent was wrong and unjustified as they have not been served with the calculation of the quantity of the goods; that the order in GST MOV-11 contains fine in lieu of confiscation of Goods and conveyance, however under Section 130 of Act, 2017 only one of the above can be imposed on the assessee. The appellate authority observed that the measurement of the impugned goods found in excess was taken in presence of Driver/Person In-charge of the vehicle and recorded on worksheet and finalized in the presence of Driver/Person-In- charge of vehicle, which was duly served to the Person In-charge of vehicle and he never objected it. The excess quantity was supplied without declaring in the invoice with intent to evade the payment of tax therefore, the Section 130 of the Act was rightly invoked.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.