Rajasthan Commercial House vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion) , Cgst Division-a
(Faa (First Appellate Authority), Rajasthan)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Rajasthan Commercial House
The Deputy Commissioner (Anti Evasion) , Cgst Division-a
Faa (First Appellate Authority)
Jan 22, 2020
Order No.
TR Citation
2020 (1) TR 4159
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Rajasthan Commercial House, B-115, Road No.9, VKI Area, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against Order No. 04 dated 14.09.2018 issued vide C.No. IV(39)148/Misc Enq/E-way Bil/T-II/2018/Pt/7644 dated 14.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-A, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the adjudicating authority”).

Brief facts of the case:

2.  The brief facts of the case are that the appellant’s conveyance bearing No. RJ 14 GG 4800 was intercepted by the officers of CGST Division A on 10.09.2018 at 8.45 PM at Road No. 14. VKI Area, Delhi Road, Jaipur. The goods in movement were inspected under the provision of sub section 3 of Section 68 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and the following discrepancies were found:

(a) No Invoice/ Challan was available with the goods in transit,

(b) No e-way Bili was availabe with goods in transit.

(c) The Driver has only computerized kanta Slip of goods in transit.

The goods and the conveyance used for the movement of impugned goods were detained under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax’ Act 2017 read with sub-section 3 of Section 68 of CGST’ Act 2017 by issuing an order of detention in FORM GST MOV-06.

Accordingly, a show-cause-notice dated 13.09.2018 proposing tax and penalty was issued to the appellant which further culminated into the impugned order vide which the adjudicating authority has imposed penalty of ₹ 3,48,370 /- upon the appellant. The goods and conveyance were released on 14.09.2018 after payment of penalty.

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

(i) That the department has claimed from inception that it had intercepted the vehicle at 8.45 PM on 10.09.2018 before generation of E-way Bill which is incorrect whereas the vehicle was intercepted approximately at 9.00 to 9.05 PM. The same was already informed to the department vide letter dated 13.09.2018.

(ii) The fact is that a normal working individual having normal skills can generate a simple e-way bill in minimum 10 minutes and not less than that. It is so because the e-way bill generation involves various steps i.e. generating the tax invoice, opening the portal, logging on to some, opening the e-way bill general tab, filing various deails and then submitting the form.

(iii)  The claim of the department that they had intercepted the vehicle at 8.45 PM and only after this incidence the appellant had generated e-way bill and as such they operate on such modus operandi does not seem proper. This allegation seems more like an allegation framed to levy penal provisions on the appellant especially when the w-way bill was generated from the e-way bill portal at 8.47 PM.

(iv)  The actual position is that they had generated the e-way bill on portal after receiving the information about weighment of the goods and the same was mailed to the transporter at 8.51 PM. After that it was to be physically handed over to the truck driver but before such physical delivery the truck was intercepted at around 9.00 to 9.05 PM and the truck was found without physical copies of e-way bill and invoice.

4. Personal Hearing in the case has been conducted on 27.03.2019. Shri Pulkit Kapoor, Chartered Accountant on behalf of appellant appeared for personal hearing. He explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds as mentioned in the grounds of appeal and requested to decide the case earlier. He further requested to condone the delay and also submitted the request application on dated 27.03.2019 for condonation of delay.

5. The appellant has filed the appeal delaying by one day as prescribed under Section 107(1) of CGST Act 2017. The appellant has furnished application for condonation of delay on 27.03.2019 at the time of personal hearing on the ground that due to prescheduled hearing in CESTAT in New Delhi on 12th and 13th December’ 2018 they could not file the appeal within time i.e. on or before 13th December 2018. I accept that this is a genuine reason for: delay in filing of appeal and condone the delay filing of appeal as per sub-section 4 of Section 107 of the CGST’ Act 2017.

6. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and records available on file and submissions made in their appeal memorandum.

7. On perusal of the facts on record, I find that the appellant’s contention that the vehicle was intercepted at approximately 9.00 to 9.05 PM instead of 8.45 PM. This argument can not be accepted in absence of any evidence. They have not submitted any evidence in support of this argument, The e-way bill also generated after the interception of the vehicle i.e. at 8.47 PM. As the vehicle was not accompanied with any valid document i.e. e-way bill, invoice etc., prescribed as per law and that the appellant has generated e-way bill after interception of vehicle by the CGST officers, the penal provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 129 of the CGST Act, 2017 were correctly invoked.

8.  In view of the above discussion and findings, I hereby reject the appeal filled by the appellant

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • rajasthan commercial house vs the deputy commissioner anti evasion cGST division a first appellate authority rajasthan

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096