In the instant case since the petitioner has furnished the E-way Bill prior to detention and seizure of goods, no seizure order can legally be passed nor penalty can be asked. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Section 125 of the CGST Act for not mentioning the proper detail in the E-way bill.
E-way bill— Section 125, 129 of CGST Act— In the present case, the Proper Officer, Panchkula has imposed penalty on the ground that the goods in question were being transported without any proper and genuine document. The presumption was drawn in the matter for violation of law by not fill up the part-B of the E-way Bill in question.
The checking officer has not considered the factual aspect of the matter before holding that there was violation of law. The documents produced by the driver-cum-person in-charge of the goods at the time of checking of the goods under dispute do not indicate that any attempt was made to evade tax.
in the instant case since the petitioner has furnished the E-way Bill prior to detention and seizure of goods, no seizure order can legally be passed nor penalty can be asked.
Held that— the impugned order imposing tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of the HGST Acts upon the appellant is hereby set aside. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Section 125 of the IGST/CGST Act for not mentioning the proper detail in the documents (i.e. E-way Bill).
In the instant case since the petitioner has furnished the E-way Bill prior to detention and seizure of goods, no seizure order can legally be passed nor penalty can be asked. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Section 125 of the CGST Act for not mentioning the proper detail in the E-way bill.
E-way bill— Section 125, 129 of CGST Act— In the present case, the Proper Officer, Panchkula has imposed penalty on the ground that the goods in question were being transported without any proper and genuine document. The presumption was drawn in the matter for violation of law by not fill up the part-B of the E-way Bill in question.
The checking officer has not considered the factual aspect of the matter before holding that there was violation of law. The documents produced by the driver-cum-person in-charge of the goods at the time of checking of the goods under dispute do not indicate that any attempt was made to evade tax.
in the instant case since the petitioner has furnished the E-way Bill prior to detention and seizure of goods, no seizure order can legally be passed nor penalty can be asked.
Held that— the impugned order imposing tax and penalty under Section 129(3) of the HGST Acts upon the appellant is hereby set aside. However, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed under Section 125 of the IGST/CGST Act for not mentioning the proper detail in the documents (i.e. E-way Bill).