2026-VIL-175-GSTAT-BLR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-175-GSTAT-BLR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Validity of order in Form GST MOV-09 passed without considering objections and without personal hearing - Appellant despatched transformer oil drums with a delivery challan and e-way bill, the conveyance was intercepted - Copies of tax e-invoices and e-way bills were furnished to the proper officer before issue of notice in Form GST MOV 07 - The notice granted seven days to submit objections and fixed a personal hearing, but the order in Form GST MOV 09 was passed on the same date as the notice - Whether the order in Form GST MOV 09 violates the principles of natural justice - HELD - The reasons given for rejecting the explanation were identical to those in the show cause notice and the objections filed by the Appellant were not referred to. The order does not disclose application of mind to the objections. The proper officer had a statutory duty to refer to and consider the taxpayer's explanations before resorting to Section 129 - The order was passed without granting a personal hearing as required by the statute. No reason was furnished for passing the order on the same date as the notice. The Appellate Authority did not consider this plea although it was raised before it - The principles of natural justice were violated and the order in Form GST MOV 09 cannot be sustained - Order in Form GST MOV 09 beyond the scope of the notice - Section 75(7) of the CGST Act - The notice in Form GST MOV 07 proposed a penalty lower than the penalty demanded in the order in Form GST MOV 09. The Respondent contended that the penalty leviable was the higher amount and that the notice showed the lower amount due to a clerical error - Whether the order is beyond the scope of the show cause notice and violates Section 75(7) of the Act - HELD - Section 75(7) provides that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice, and no demand will be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice - The statute is very clear and the quantum of penalty demanded in the order shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice. The provision does not make any exception for clerical errors. Nothing prevented the officer from issuing an erratum to the notice disclosing the exact penalty amount, especially when the notice granted seven days to submit objections and a personal hearing was also fixed. The Appellate Authority did not consider this plea although it was raised before it - The order in Form GST MOV 09 is beyond the scope of the notice in Form GST MOV 07 and violates Section 75(7) of the Act - Non-compliance with procedure in Circular No. 41/15/2018-GST - Effect on validity of order - Clause (h) of the Circular requires the proper officer to upload the order in Form GST MOV 09 on the common portal and to add the demand to the electronic liability register - Whether violation of the procedure laid down by the Board in the Circular affects the validity of the order of the proper officer - HELD - the lapse, if any, was a technical lapse only and the order cannot be set-aside on that ground. The procedural lapse of not following the Board's circular does not warrant setting aside the order on that ground alone - Invocation of Section 129 of the CGST Act for goods transported in batches - Rule 55(5) of the CGST Rules - Transformer oil forming part of the remaining material of transformers already supplied was transported under a delivery challan referring to seven earlier tax invoices, and an e-way bill. Penalty was imposed on the ground that item-wise invoices showed that goods were not supplied in batches, that the description in the delivery challan and the e-way bill was mismatched, and that the original invoice was not produced - Whether invocation of Section 129 is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case - HELD - The supplier had issued the complete invoices before dispatch of the first consignment, as the delivery challan referred to seven invoices issued earlier, and the invoices reflected charging of integrated tax from the recipient. The Purchase Order established that the recipient ordered transformers along with spare transformer oil whose price was included in the contractual price, and these facts remained undisputed. Item-wise tax invoices cannot be a ground for holding that goods were not supplied in batches, as no provision in the Act supports such reasoning - The fact that a commercial transaction contains separately described items does not establish that each item must be transported in the same consignment or that subsequent consignments are impermissible. The delivery challan could have been worded differently to avoid confusion, but the statement therein that the ‘price of all material was already included in the referred invoices’ comes to the aid of the Appellant. Rule 55(5) does not require submission of the original invoice to the proper officer - So long as the delivery challan contains all details required under Rule 55, a minor omission cannot be treated as a violation. No intention to evade tax and no violation of the Act or the Rules was established - Imposition of penalty under Section 129 is invalid and unjustified, the order-in-appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?