The petitioner has challenged the detention order on the ground that validity of the E-way bill had expired on account of a clerical error which would not result into any tax liability. the order is set aside.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner challenged an order dated 5th November, 2018 demanding CGST of Rs. 1,48,425/- each and a similar sum under SGST with penalties of Rs. 4,12,291/- under CGST and SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that due to a clerical error the distance from the place of origin to the ultimate destination was shown as 470 Kms instead of actual distance which was 1470 Kms. Therefore, as per sub-rule (10) of Rule 138, a transporter having time of one day to transport the goods for every 100 Kms., the system automatically generated the validity period of five days for the E-way bill. The goods were intercepted and detained on the ground that the transporter had not produced valid E-way bill. On 5.11.2018 a SCN was issued under sub-section (1) of section 129 of the Act, 2017. As per SCN, the petitioner to appear on 19.11.2018 at 10.45 a.m. but respondent passed the impugned order on 05.11.2018 confirming the principal tax demand with penalties. The respondent submitted that statutory appeal against the impugned order is available which the petitioner has not availed of. The court observed that the defect of the goods in transporting without valid E-way bill was as a result of a minor oversight and a clerical error, therefore, the respondent had no power to demand GST with penalty. The court relied on the CBIC circular dated 14th September, 2018, which stated that proceedings under section 129 should not be initiated if there is an error of one or two digits in a document number mentioned in the E-way bill. The court further observed that the order suffered from gross irregularity, as no hearing has been granted.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2018.
The petitioner has challenged the detention order on the ground that validity of the E-way bill had expired on account of a clerical error which would not result into any tax liability. the order is set aside.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit –-- The petitioner challenged an order dated 5th November, 2018 demanding CGST of Rs. 1,48,425/- each and a similar sum under SGST with penalties of Rs. 4,12,291/- under CGST and SGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that due to a clerical error the distance from the place of origin to the ultimate destination was shown as 470 Kms instead of actual distance which was 1470 Kms. Therefore, as per sub-rule (10) of Rule 138, a transporter having time of one day to transport the goods for every 100 Kms., the system automatically generated the validity period of five days for the E-way bill. The goods were intercepted and detained on the ground that the transporter had not produced valid E-way bill. On 5.11.2018 a SCN was issued under sub-section (1) of section 129 of the Act, 2017. As per SCN, the petitioner to appear on 19.11.2018 at 10.45 a.m. but respondent passed the impugned order on 05.11.2018 confirming the principal tax demand with penalties. The respondent submitted that statutory appeal against the impugned order is available which the petitioner has not availed of. The court observed that the defect of the goods in transporting without valid E-way bill was as a result of a minor oversight and a clerical error, therefore, the respondent had no power to demand GST with penalty. The court relied on the CBIC circular dated 14th September, 2018, which stated that proceedings under section 129 should not be initiated if there is an error of one or two digits in a document number mentioned in the E-way bill. The court further observed that the order suffered from gross irregularity, as no hearing has been granted.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2018.