Ad Blocker Detected
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Neva plantation private limited vs ACST & E
The disputed goods were sent by the petitioner for repair to the supplier , on challan , with a photocopy of invoice received at the time of purchase. The proper Officer intercepted the conveyance which was carrying the goods and then it came to notice of the proper officer that the e-way bill has not been generated for the movement of the goods.
Hence, a penalty has been imposed u/a 129 of IGST/CGST Act, 2019 for contravention of Rule 138 and demand of (i.e total ₹1,18,800/-) has been created under IGST Act against the taxpayer.
The appellant is saying that ,since they are engaged in the supply of exempted goods, they are not required to issue e-way bill as per Rule 138 (14). The respondent in response argued that as per Rule 138(1) of CGST/IGST Rules, 2017, every registered person who causes movement of goods of consignment value exceeding ₹50,000 in relation to a supply or for reasons other than supply or due to inward supply from an unregistered person, is required to generate e way bill.
Over this , the petitioner accepted the fact that e-way bill is required in cases other than supply and pleaded that since there is no tax implication in this case and that they were sending capital goods for repair only, thus no penalty can be imposed u/a 129(1).
The appellate authority ruled that ,”Since the transaction has no tax implications, the proper office while adjudicating the case has taken into consideration the invoice value of the 9 month old purchase invoice for determining the tax and penalty in this case u/s 129(1) of the Act.
The method used for valuation of transaction is not just and proper as the disputed goods were old and were dispatched for repair. The tax and penalty deposited by the appellant u/s 129(1) may be refunded and a penalty of ₹10,000 is imposed on the taxpayer u/s 122(1) of the Act”.
The details of the case can be read here : Case file