The appellant could not prove with documentary evidence their stand that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers. Therefore, detention/seizure of goods and vehicle and initiation of penal proceedings cannot be faulted.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit — The appellant filed appeal against Order in FORM GST MOV-09, dated 6-12-2018 on the ground (i) that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers; (ii) that the consignment was supported by appropriate documents and proof of payment of tax; (iii) that no penalty is to be imposed in the absence of any mala fide intent for evasion of taxes on the part of company. The authority observed that neither the appellant nor the transporter have taken the necessary measures or precautions to ensure extension of validity of the E-way bill or generation of an alternate valid one in terms of Rule 138(10) and chose to transport the goods on the old E-way bill which was not a valid document. The appellant could not prove with documentary evidence their stand that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.
The appellant could not prove with documentary evidence their stand that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers. Therefore, detention/seizure of goods and vehicle and initiation of penal proceedings cannot be faulted.
Section 129 of the CGST Act — Goods in Transit — The appellant filed appeal against Order in FORM GST MOV-09, dated 6-12-2018 on the ground (i) that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers; (ii) that the consignment was supported by appropriate documents and proof of payment of tax; (iii) that no penalty is to be imposed in the absence of any mala fide intent for evasion of taxes on the part of company. The authority observed that neither the appellant nor the transporter have taken the necessary measures or precautions to ensure extension of validity of the E-way bill or generation of an alternate valid one in terms of Rule 138(10) and chose to transport the goods on the old E-way bill which was not a valid document. The appellant could not prove with documentary evidence their stand that the goods were being transferred from the location of the transporter to the recipient’s location which was within the distance of 50 kilometers.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority rejected the appeal filed by the appellant.