2026-VIL-203-GSTAT-RPR
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-203-GSTAT-RPR

SGST Tribunal

GST - Section 129 of CGST Act, 2017 - Plea of non-service of MOV-07 - Appellant challenged the order imposing tax and penalty under Section 129 for goods carried without an e-way bill and submitted at the final hearing that MOV-07 was not served - Appellant had submitted a written representation seeking rejection of the notice and release of the vehicle - MOV-05 recorded service of MOV-07 on the person in charge - Whether the plea of non-service of MOV-07 is sustainable in view of Section 160(2) - HELD - The appeal papers acknowledged issuance of a notice preceding the demand and described the Appellant's letter as a reply seeking rejection of that notice. MOV-05 recorded service of MOV-07 on the person in charge, and MOV-09 also recorded the date of service. These recitals, corroborated by the Appellant's own pleading and its contemporaneous letter, establish issuance of the original notice and that the Appellant acted upon it - Absence of MOV-07 from the appellate record does not outweigh that cumulative evidence. Section 160(2) bars questioning service where the recipient has already acted upon the notice. The finding rests on the notice recitals and the admitted response, not merely on participation, payment for release or a presumed withdrawal. Section 160(2) is not used to supply a notice that never existed. The finding does not affirm the demand or dispense with consideration of the defence and the hearing required by Section 129(4) - The plea of non-service of MOV-07 is rejected and the issue stands concludedrnrn rnrnIssue 2: Detention of goods in transit under Section 129 - Movement without e-way bill - Claim of intra-district movement and subsequent diversion - Supplier issued an invoice to the Appellant for TMT bars giving the destination only as the State, and no e-way bill was generated for that leg - Appellant issued two further invoices to buyers in another State and generated e-way bills for the same vehicle - Vehicle was intercepted before the onward e-way bills were generated - Whether the dispute can be decided finally on the appellate record or calls for a confined remand, and whether intention to evade tax is required for Section 129 - HELD - Rule 138 requires the e-way bill to be generated before commencement of the movement for which it is required, and generation after commencement does not confer retrospective compliance. Delivery on the direction of a third person under Section 10(1)(b) of the IGST Act does not alter an existing transport instruction or dispense with the e-way bill for the subsequent movement. The place, time and route of interception, the original destination and the stage at which any diversion took effect could not be determined on the record. The original goods receipt was substantially unfilled, the time entry in MOV-09 was altered, and the order in appeal recorded a wrong date, vehicle and section. The first appellate conclusion therefore cannot be affirmed as a concurrent factual finding - Section 129(1) predicates detention on transport in contravention, whereas Sections 130(1)(i) and (iv) expressly refer to intention to evade. The explanation and the nature and seriousness of the breach must still be adjudicated, as penalty is not automatic. Section 107(11) does not authorise the first appellate authority to remand, whereas Section 113(1) empowers the Tribunal to refer the matter to the original adjudicating authority - The order in appeal and MOV-09 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to resume from consideration of the Appellant's representation, on the existing MOV-07 and within the original allegation, without any new allegation or enhanced demand - Appeal partly allowedrnrn rnrnIssue 3: Payment made to secure release of goods under Section 129 - Treatment of amount paid - Appellant paid the tax and penalty demanded after its written representation to obtain release of the goods and conveyance, and thereafter challenged the order in appeal - Whether the payment made for release extinguishes the challenge or amounts to final determination of liability - HELD - Subsequent return filing supports disclosure of the onward invoices but does not erase a transit contravention, if established. Relying on the Supreme Court in ASP Traders, payment to obtain release following written objections neither extinguishes the challenge nor dispenses with a reasoned decision under Section 129(3). The amount paid is not a waiver or final determination of liability. It must be verified and reconciled against the fresh determination without duplication - The amount paid shall be credited against the fresh determination, with consequential adjustment or refund in accordance with law if the demand does not survive.
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?