Page 182 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

268 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 37
goods without the cover of documents as may be specified in the behalf. In
the instant case the appellant has produced all the required documents ex-
cept advanced ‘e’ waybill and also the seller dealer has charged IGST in the
invoices issued in favour of the appellant. The collection tax and penalty is
without jurisdiction for the reason that the appellant is transported in the
goods with valid documents.
(4) The provisions of Section 68 and Rule 138 read with Section 122 of the
AP GST Act applies only when there is evasion of tax and not for expiry of
‘e’ Waybill.
Prayer : It is prayed to kindly declare the action of Deputy Assistant Com-
missioner-Ill (ST), Gandhi Chowk Circle, in collecting tax of Rs. 85,380/-
and penalty of Rs. 85,380/- without establishing tax evasion is in violation
of the provisions of Section 129(3) of the SGST Act and thereby order for re-
fund of the tax of Rs. 85,380/- and penalty of Rs. 85,380/- unlaw fully col-
lected. It is also prayed to declare the action of the inspecting authority is
contrary to GOMS No. 309, dated 24-7-2017.
Discussion :
11. Perused the grounds of appeal filed by the appellant alongside the
impugned order passed by the inspecting authority i.e. Deputy Assistant Com-
missioner of State Tax-III, Tenali, Gandhi Chowk Circle, Guntur Division.
12. The appellant contended that due to heavy rain on 19-8-2018, they
could not transport the goods and also put forth that the distance between Uppa-
lapadu and Eluru is 96Km as such the validity’e’ waybill is two days as pre-
scribed in G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017.
13. The appellant put forth the following case laws in support of their
arguments.
(1) The Hon’ble AP High Court in the case of Good Health Agro Tech
Limited, Hyderabad v. CTO, Mahaboobnagar Circle, (1996) 22 APSTJ 78
(2) The Hon’ble High Court Judgment in Ambica Lamp House, Ra-
jahmundry v. CTO (Int.)-I, Enft., Hyderabad (2005) 40 APSTJ 56 APHC
14. The appellant further averred that the provisions of Section 122 of
the APGST Act has no application to the facts of case sub-item (xiv) of Section
122 speaks transports any taxable goods without the cover of documents as may
be specified in the be-half. In the instant case the appellant has produced all the
required documents except advanced ‘e’ Waybill and also the seller dealer has
charged IGST in the invoices issued in favour of the appellant. The collection tax
and penalty is without jurisdiction for the reason that the appellant is transport-
ed in the goods with valid documents.
Issues for adjudication :
(1) Whether the appellant contention that validity period for ‘e’ waybill
is two days as per G.O.Ms. No. 309, dated 24-7-2017, is applicable to
the present case or not?
(2) Whether the appellant put forth any dependable and acceptable ex-
planations against the levy of tax/penalty, by I.A or not?
Analysis :
15. Perused the grounds of appeal along with assessment order passed
by the Inspecting Authority, and after thorough verification of records, the find-
ings of the appellate authority are stated below;
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  182