This appeal has been filed under section 107 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act read

with section
20 of the IGST Act by M/S BHOGAL TEXTILES; Address – 1698/10/C/32/4, New Shakti Nagar,
Near Dada Bajaj, Ludhiana against impugned order MOV09 dated 5/06/2023 passed by Asst.
Commissioner State Tax mobile squad , Khatima (Uttarakhand) in which a penalty of RS 180,000 was
imposed by the above said adjudicating authority u/s 129(3) of The Central Goods and Service Tax
Act and section 20 of the IGST tax act.
The amount of penalty which is 180,000 was fully deposited on 05/06/2023 vide challan no.
2306050004393. According to the temporary ID which was issued to the appellant under the
proceedings in which the mentioned amount of penalty has been realised by the mobile squad
department from the cash ledger of the appellant. Hence there is no requirement to pre-deposit any
other amount of penalty before filing the appeal. For further consideration a Copy of challan has been
attached with the said appeal.
FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER DISPUTE.

 The petitioner is engaged in manufacturing and supply of textile machines under the name
and style of M/S BHOGAL TEXTILES; Address – 1698/10/C/32/4, New Shakti Nagar, Near
Dada Bajaj, Ludhiana having registration no. 03AQCPC3307A12K under Punjab State Goods
and Service Tax Act. Appellant received the export order dated from K/R Textiles, Lalitpur,
Nepal for the supply of textile machine amounting Rs 500,000.
 In order to full fill the export order appellant filed a letter of undertaking on GST portal for
availing the option to supply of machine for export to Nepal without payment of IGST under
the GST Act. Acknowledgment vide dated 23/03/2023 received against such letter of
undertaking from the department.
 The machine was dispatched to Nepal for export in truck no. UK03CA4337 accompanied
with invoice EI/4 Dated 31/05/2023 of Rs. 500,000, E-WAY bill no. 301607781214 issued in
favour of M/S K.L Textiles, Lalitpur, Nepal.
 During the movement of goods from Ludhiana to Nepal, goods were intercepted by Shri
Chandan Singh Bora (State Tax Officer), mobile wing Haldwani (Uttarakhand). Under the
provision sub section 3 of section 68 of CGST Act, 2017 or u/s 20 of the IGST Act, 2017. The
driver of the vehicle produced all requisite documents i.e., Invoice E-WAY Bill and Goods
Receipt before the Detaining Officer Chander Singh Bora. A Discrepancy was found by the
detaining officer in the E-WAY bill that vehicle no. was not mentioned in presented E-WAY
Bill. Though all other documents such invoice and Goods Receipt accompanied with the
goods are genuine and not disputed.
 Goods were detained and notice was issued by the State Tax Officer as per provisions of
section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax act and 20 of the IGST Act. Physical
verification of the goods was done and report was submitted that goods were same as per
invoice carrying the goods. Then Asst. Commissioner State Tax mobile squad, Khatima
(Uttarakhand) issued a notice dated levied a penalty of 180,000 u/s 129 of Central Goods
and Service Tax act and 20 of the IGST Act and released the goods after paying the penalty.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. No need to generate E-WAY bill in case of goods supply/export to Nepal.
It is pertinent to note that here rule 138 sub rule (14)(i) prescribed sum condition or
exceptions where no E-WAY bill is required to be generated when the goods are being
transported to Nepal or Bhutan.
As per the provisions specified under rule 138(14) of the Goods and Services Tax read as under:
-
(14) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, no e-way bill is required to be generated-
(a) where the goods being transported are specified in Annexure;
(b) xxxxx
(c) xxxxxx
(d) xxxxxx
(e) xxxxxx
(f) xxxxx
(g) xxxx
(h) xxxx
(i) where the goods being transported are transit cargo from or to Nepal or Bhutan.

Therefore, Initially the action taken by adjudicating authorities (Asst. Commissioner State Tax
mobile squad, Khatima (Uttarakhand) and State Tax Officer) in detaining and seizing the goods under
section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods and Service Tax Act 2017 and section 20 of the IGST Act vide
order dated was wholly illegal, arbitrary, and bad as per law. When the detaining officer having not
raised any suspicion or objection against the invoice, it is very evident that even the department
admits that the transport of goods is pursuant to a transaction of export to Nepal where no E-WAY Bill
is required to be generated then there could be no penalty imposed under this case. It is also pointed
out the adjudication as contemplated as per above provisions would be futile exercise since

2. MINOR DISCREPENCY IN THE E-WAY BILL

The second ground of appeal is that minor discrepancies in not mentioning the vehicle no. in the E-
WAY BILL would not attract proceedings for penalty under section 129 of the Uttarakhand Goods and
Service Tax Act 2017 and section 20 of the IGST Act because there was no intention on the part of
appellant to invade the tax. The revenue department (respondent) intercepted the goods and detained
the vehicle on date on the ground that vehicle no. was not mentioned in the E-WAY BILL
accompanied with the goods. When the driver incharge of the goods produced invoice at the time of
detention of the goods, vehicle no. was already mentioned in the invoice. Appellant could not
mention the vehicle no. in the E-WAY BILL was due to some technical glitches at the time of
generating the E-WAY BILL on the site of GST portal. The appellant has made the above said
transaction in his books of accounts and supplied has been properly accounted for. Further record of
E-WAY bill generated by the appellant was available on the GST portal given this an intention to
invade tax could not attributed to the appellant. Therefore, penalty should not be imposed on
appellant. Not mentioning the vehicle no. in PART-B was an in evident mistake and does not render
the whole transaction as illegal one. The harsh stance cannot be taken on it by the department.
Section 129 especially speaks on penalty as relatable to the tax applicable equal to hundred percent of
the tax payable on such goods. This would necessarily indicate that there can be no penalty imposed
on section 129 if the transaction itself is proved to be one having no tax liability. In view of the above
penalty imposed on the appellant is not sustainable and liable to be set aside in the interest of the
justice.