E-way bill is invalid only if Part-B of E-way bill is not filled or a considerable time to update the Part -A of e-way bill has gone by. Therefore, in my opinion imposition of tax/ penalty by the respondent is harsh and unsustainable.
Goods in transit— Section 139 of CGST Act— In the instant case in brief are that the appellant has purchased material under the proper cover of documents i.e. tax invoice, GR and E-way Bill.
It is a fact that the E-way Bill for the material in question was generated at 05:52 pm on 1-11-2018 and further updated on 5-11-2018 at 06:38 pm in which all relevant detail were entered. Due to break down of material carrying vehicle the material were transhipped 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 material was transhipped 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 at 11:52 am dated 6-11-2018. Despite the updation of the part-B of EWB the Ld. Respondent detained the vehicle and imposed tax/penalty to the tune of Rs. 16,28,23,728/-.
Held that— The appellant has declared the consignment on 1-11-2018 at 05:52 p.m. and further updated on 5-11-2018 at 06:38 pm. 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