This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s L.G. Electronics India, Pvt Ltd., F-601-648, Road No.6, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against Order-in-Original No.10/E-way Bill/CGST Div-B/18-19/7249 dated 06.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-B, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the adjudicating authority”).

Brief facts of the case:-

2.1 The brief facts of the case are that on 30.11.2018 at 05.19 PM a conveyance bearing No. RJ-14-GF-6831 was intercepted in movement at Naya Khera Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur by the Officers of CGST Division-8, Jaipur. The statement of the Driver/Person In-Charge, of the vehicle was also recorded on 30.11.2018. The goods in movement were inspected under the provisions of sub section (3) of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancies were found:-

(a) E-way bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM. MOV-01 and MOV-02 were served accordingly. The person in charge of the vehicle provided an e-way bill at the physical verification stage. After verification it was found that the said e-way bill updated with the conveyance No. RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.19 PM i.e. time of interception.

2.2. In view of the above, the impugned goods and the conveyance used for the movement of goods were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act’ Act 2017 read with sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the State/Union Territory Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 or under Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with sub section (3) of Section 68 of the CGST Act, 2017 by issuing an order% of detention in FORM GST MOV 06 and the same was served on the person in charge of the conveyance on 03.12.2018. As the appellant has refused for personal hearing in the instant case. M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd., Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar, Surajpur Kasna Road, Greater Noida (UP) as owner of the impugned goods in conveyance has come forward to pay tax and penalty, claiming the goods in the conveyance. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order. The adjudicating. authority apart from confirming the demand of Tax amounting to ₹ 76,272/- (CGST amounting to ₹ 38,136/- + SGST amounting to ₹ 38,136/-) also imposed penalty equal to 100% amount of Tax amounting to ₹ 76,272/-, The impugned goods and conveyance used for transport of goods were released after depositing of Tax and penalty amount. The owner of the goods i.e. M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd, having GSTIN 08AAACL1745Q1Z4 has deposited the Tax (CGST and SGST @ 9% of ₹ 38,136/- each) vide Challan No. CPIN 18120800016270 dated 06.12.2018 and penalty equal to 100% tax amount of Tax amounting to ₹ 76,272/- payable vide Challan No. 18120800016270 dated 06.12.2018 total amounting to ₹ 1,52,544/-(Rupees One Lacs Fifty Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Four only).

3. Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed the appeal on various grounds which are summarized as under:

(i) that the goods were duly moved under the cover of Tax Invoice and E-way Bill, hence detention of goods is totally unsustainable in law and the order has been passed on sole ground that the Appellant has breached the provisions of Rule 138 of the CGST, Rules in as much as the vehicle was not accompanied with a valid E-way Bill. As per CGST Act or RJGST Act requires an E-way Bill to be generated for ferrying goods worth more than ₹ 50,000/-, the appellant logged onto the E-way Bill portal and duty generated an E-way Bill before movement of goods at 4.38 PM Therefore, the contention of non-compliance of Rule 138 of the CGST Rules is totally frivolous.

(ii) that the goods were accompanied with Tax Invoice, E-way Bill and Consignment Note as prescribed in Rule 138A of the CGST Rules. The details of documents are as follows:-

(iii) that there is no contumacious conduct on part of the appellant as can be verified from timely filing of periodical GSTR-1, which in itself is a very conclusive evidence for establishing payment of duty for the goods under investigation. Hence, the demand of duty and penalty as imposed in the impugned order are totally unwarranted and not tenable in the eyes of law. The Government aims at enhancement of ‘Ease of Doing Business’, however such superfluous riders attached to what would be called a valid E-way Bill by the GST officers hampers this initiative.

(iv) that Vehicle number was subsequently updated in the E-way Bill due to change of Truck carrying the goods. The adjudicating authority has given a finding that the Appellant did not present a valid E-way Bill as mandated by Rules 138 of the CGST Rules and instead ‘cited other documents which were not relevant, solely on a presumption that vehicle number was updated at the time of interception, which is apparently cot correct. It is further recorded in the impugned order that the vehicle was intercepted at 05.19 PM on 30.11.2018 but valid E-way Bill was not generated on or before the time of interception, and LGEIL updated the vehicle number after the interception at 05.27 PM.

(v) that it was categorically mentioned and stated before the learned adjudicating authority that due to change in vehicle to be used for transportation of the shipment, the E-way Bill was generated at 4.38 PM with vehicle No.RJ14-GF-9189 before the commencement of goods was updated to vehicle no RJ-14-GF-6831 at 5:27 PM by the person-in-charge of the warehouse.

(vi) That it was also mentioned that for making load plan in LGEIL’s system, vehicle number on which delivery is proposed is mandatorily required. Basis the information received from the transporter initially, vehicle number RJ-14-GF-9189 was entered and accordingly the load plan got prepared in the system. However, due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter, he placed another vehicle bearing number R3-14-GF-6831 in place of vehicle No. RJ14-GF-9189 and the goods were loaded in different vehicle than the earlier planned. When at the time of dispatch, the person-in-charge of warehouse noticed the above discrepancy, immediately action was taken to update the vehicle number in the E-way Bill.

(vii) Apparently, the E-way Bill portal was updated within half an hour from the time of dispatch of goods and conveyance from warehouse. It is apposite here to mention that there is no restriction on updating Part B (vehicle details) of the E-way Bill. Part B of the E-way Bill duly generated by the appellant reflects in the “vehicle/train doc. No.” column, vehicle No. RJ-14-GF-6831 and the “entered date” column reflects time as 05.27 PM on 30.11.2018. The updating was done within overall validity period of E-way Bill. Therefore, the details were duly furnished before commencement of movement of goods in compliance with Section 129 (1) of the CGST Act/RJGST Act read with Rule 138(1) of the CGST/RJGST Rules. The assertion by the learned adjudicating authority in the impugned order that other documents except a valid E-way Bill were cited by the appellant only to clarify that the goods belonged to a registered dealer on which CGST and SGST had been charged.

(viii) There is no allegation of evasion of Tax liability established neither from the SCN nor the impugned order. Merely delay in submitting updated vehicle number is not a valid ground for doubting the authenticity of E-way Bill, resulting to suppression of facts so as to justify the detention of conveyance and imposition of penalty. Given that the traders are facing difficulty in accessing E-way-Bill on the common portal, the delay was a mere technical breach and a liberal view in favour of the appellant must be accepted.

The appellant has also submitted various case laws in support of their contention which may be summarised as under:

Modern Traders V State of U.P. [2018 (14) GSTL 184 (ALL.)] 

Raj Iron & Building Materials V UOI [2018 (12) GSTL 19 (All.)] 

Axpress Logistics (P) Ltd., V UOI reported in [2018] 100 taxmann.com 34 (Allahabad) 

Shaurya Enterprises V State of UP reported in [2018] 99 taxmann.com 48 (Allahabad).

Rajavat Steel & Another V State of UP & 3 Others, [2018 (18 GSTL 814 (All)]  

Board Circular No,64/38/2018-GST dated 14.09.2018.

M/s Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut 2005 TIOL-118 SC-CX 

4. Personal Hearing in the case was conducted on 13.03.2020. Shri Jatin Harjai, Advocate and Miss Neha Sethi, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellant and explained the case in detail and also submitted additional written submission dated 13.03.2020 along with case laws and requested to decide the case accordingly.

5. I have carefully gone through the case records and detail submissions made by the appellant in the appeal memorandum as well as additional written submission dated 13.03.2020 submitted at the time of personal hearing.

6. I find that department had made the case against the appellant on the ground that the Valid E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM on 30.11.2018. MOV-01 and MOV-02 were served accordingly. The person in charge of the vehicle provided an e-way bill at the physical verification stage. After verification it was found that the said e-way bill updated with the conveyance No. RJ-14-GF-6831 at 05.27 PM. Hence, the valid e-way bill was not available with the intercepted vehicle at 05.19 PM i.e. time of interception and cleared impugned goods without e way bill and the person-in-charge of the vehicle provided an E-way Bill at the physical verification stage.

7. I find that M/s L.G. Electronics, India Pvt Ltd, having GSTIN 08AAACL1745Q1Z4, the owner of the goods are engaged in the manufacturing of Electronic and Appliances Products such as LED Television, Monitor, Microwaves, Air-Conditioners, Refrigerator, Water Purifier and Washing Machine etc., has two manufacturing units, Direct Service Centers and Branch Warehouses in different States across the country and such Manufacturing Units and Warehouses have been registered state wise under Goods and Service Tax law and is also registered in the State of Rajasthan. M/s L.G. Electronics India Pvt Ltd., has commenced movement of the goods from their warehouse situated at F-601-648, Road No.6, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur to their customer M/s Arsh Vision having GSTIN No.08AAMFA62277B1ZP (Recipient) situated at Sukh Niwas, Ground Floor, Plot No.D-225, Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur under Tax Invoice Number SINJAIAJT1811426 dated 30.11.2018 amounting to ₹ 5,00,000/-, in the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GF-6831 vide GR/LR bearing No.1347 dated 30.11.2018 through transporter M/s Ranak, Movers who was engaged by the appellant at the material of time in movement of the said goods and were also carrying copy of E-Way Bill No.731043011329, which got generated at 04:38 PM along with packing list having complete detail which is required Under Section 68 of the CGST Act read with Rule 138A of CGST Rules, 2017. Subsequently they dispatched the goods from their warehouse to Customer.

As per Section 68 of the CGST Act read with Rule 138A of Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Rules) requires that the person in-charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods of value exceeding ₹ 50,000/- should carry a copy of documents viz., Invoice/Bill of supply/ delivery challan/bill of entry and a valid e-way bill in physical or electronic form for verification. In case such person does not carry the mentioned documents, there is no doubt that a contravention of the provisions of the law takes place and the provisions of Section 129 and Section 130 of the CGST Act are invocable. Further, it may be noted that the non-furnishing of information in Part B of Form GST EWB-01 amounts to the e-way bill becoming not a valid document for the movement of goods by road as Explanation (2) to Rule 138 (3) of the CGST Rules, except in the case where the goods are transported for a distance of upto fifty kilometers within the State or Union territory to or from the place of business of the transporter to the place of business of the consignor or the consignee, as the case may be.

Further, in case a consignment of goods is accompanied with an invoice or any other specified document and also an e-way bill, proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia in the following situations:

(a) Spelling mistakes in the name of the consignor, or the consignee but the GSTIN, wherever applicable, is correct;

(b) Error in the pin-code. but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e- way bill;

(c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct;

(d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the E-way bill;

(e) Error in 4 or 6 digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate of tax mentioned is correct;

(f) Error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number.

In this regard, the appellant has stated in their defence that initially they have received notification/information from their transporter to fill the detail of vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ14-GF-9189 to deliver the aforesaid shipment to their customer at Tulsi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur and accordingly they load plan and the same was got prepared by their system. Due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter, the transporter has placed another vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GF-6831 in place of Registration No. RJ14-GF-9189. By the time the goods were loaded in the different vehicle i.e. RJ-14-GF-6831 than the previous planned the vehicle No. RJ14-GF-9189 and vehicle was gate out from their warehouse for delivery of the goods at 4.55 PM on 30.11.2018.

8. On perusal of the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, I find that the E- way- Bill No.731043011329 was got generated prior to the commencement of movement of the goods at 04.38 PM which was contained all details i.e. details of  the goods, tax invoice number as well as the name of the buyer of the goods including his registration number under the GST Act; and the transport receipt of the transporter and packing list was also accompanying the goods. In so far as E-way Bill was not available with the conveyance at the time of interception at 05.19 PM, the appellant has explained and I also find that the vehicle of the Driver was carrying the E-way Bill No.731043011329 in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ14-GF-9189 in place of vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831 due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter,’ the transporter has placed another vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-14-GF-6831 in place of Registration No. RJ-14-GF-9189. As soon as the mistake came to the notice of the appellant the same mistake was rectified by the appellant and got generated the E-Way Bill at 05.19 mentioning therein the vehicle registration number RJ-14-GF-6831. In view of above, I find that all the necessary statutory requirement under the provisions of CGST Act and Rules was fulfilled by the appellant except mentioning corrected vehicle number at the time of interception, though this mistake was corrected soon after it came to notice. Thus, there appears no ill intention to evade the tax and just mere technical mistake.

9, In the instant case before me, the appellant has submitted copies of both the E-way Bill No.731043011329 one which was generated at 04.38 PM prior to the commencement of movement of the goods in which the vehicle registration number was shown RJ-14-GF-9189 in which the goods were supposed to be delivered/loaded to the customer and other one E-way Bill No.731043011329 which was generated at 05.19 PM after realizing their mistake about the vehicle number in which vehicle registration number was correctly shown as RJ-14-GF-6831, the same vehicle was got intercepted in movement at Naya Khera, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur by the Officers of CGST Division-B, at 05.27PM. Though the appellant has made a error in mentioning the vehicle number they himself admitted that due to sudden change in vehicle plan by the transporter they could not change the vehicle number. Since the appellant himself admitted their mistake by not correcting the vehicle number. Therefore, they are liable for a penalty under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017.

10. In view of the above discussion and findings and after considering the legal requirement of documents in the instant case I hereby set aside the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority and allow the appeal filed by the appellant. I impose a penalty of ₹ 10,000/-  (Rupees Ten Thousand only) under Section 125 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the appellant.

The appeal Is disposed off in above manner.