The respondents, during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, could not have encashed the Bank Guarantee.
Once it is established that the consignment is moved without generating e-way bills, the violation of the provisions of Rule 138 of the KGST Rules is established leading to the consequences under section 129(3) of the KGST Act.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit – The petitioner challenged the orders dated 20.02.2019 under the provisions of section 129(3) of the Act and subsequent orders dated 21.12.2090 in the corresponding appeal proceedings under Section 107(11).The respondent submitted that the driver on interception of the Vehicle could produce only two Commercial Invoice copies and two Delivery Challan copies but could not furnish the prescribed e-way bills. As such, the respondent detained the Vehicle issuing order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 on 09.02.2019. The petitioner submitted that the driver of the vehicle, because he got the clearance early and everything was found correct, left the premises before the e-way bills were generated. However, the e-way bills were generated before interception. The error is bona fide and unintentional and there was no intention to evade tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition in part and quashed the orders dated 20.02.2019 and order dated 21.12.2019. And referred the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration with the necessary opportunity to the petitioner to meet all materials that could be relied against it; and the petitioner shall appear before the first respondent without further notice on 11.11.2020.
The respondents, during the pendency of the appeal proceedings, could not have encashed the Bank Guarantee.
Once it is established that the consignment is moved without generating e-way bills, the violation of the provisions of Rule 138 of the KGST Rules is established leading to the consequences under section 129(3) of the KGST Act.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit – The petitioner challenged the orders dated 20.02.2019 under the provisions of section 129(3) of the Act and subsequent orders dated 21.12.2090 in the corresponding appeal proceedings under Section 107(11).The respondent submitted that the driver on interception of the Vehicle could produce only two Commercial Invoice copies and two Delivery Challan copies but could not furnish the prescribed e-way bills. As such, the respondent detained the Vehicle issuing order of detention in Form GST MOV-06 on 09.02.2019. The petitioner submitted that the driver of the vehicle, because he got the clearance early and everything was found correct, left the premises before the e-way bills were generated. However, the e-way bills were generated before interception. The error is bona fide and unintentional and there was no intention to evade tax.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition in part and quashed the orders dated 20.02.2019 and order dated 21.12.2019. And referred the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration with the necessary opportunity to the petitioner to meet all materials that could be relied against it; and the petitioner shall appear before the first respondent without further notice on 11.11.2020.