GSTAT Raipur Sets Aside Detention Orders Against SRS Traders, Remands for Fresh Adjudication on Movement and E-Way Bill Questions
1. Background and Nature of the Dispute
The Raipur Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, in an appeal filed by SRS Traders under Section 112(1) of the Chhattisgarh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGGST Act"), read with the corresponding provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act") and, where applicable, Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("IGST Act"), partially allowed the challenge brought against two detention-related orders. The orders under challenge were Order-in-Appeal No. 66/2019 (GST Penalty) dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Raipur, which had itself affirmed Order No. 39 dated 05.09.2019 in FORM GST MOV-09 of the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle 9, Division 2, Raipur.
Both the original demand order and the first appellate order have been set aside. The Tribunal neither confirmed the demand against the assessee nor granted a final exoneration on merits. Instead, it ordered a confined remand to the original adjudicating authority, holding that the actual movement, route, destination and interception chronology could not be reliably established from the appellate record as it stood.
2. The Consignment, the Supplier Invoice and the Missing E-Way Bill
The detained goods comprised 30 MT of TMT bars carried in vehicle UP-90-T-7647 on 01.09.2019. The supplier, M/s Hi-Tech Power & Steel Ltd., Parsada, Tehsil Tilda, Raipur district, had issued Invoice No. 2019-20/4184 dated 01.09.2019 in favour of SRS Traders as buyer and consignee at Raipur. While the invoice named Raipur as the consignee's address, it described the destination merely as "C.G." without specifying any point of unloading. Crucially, no e-way bill was generated for this supplier-to-appellant leg of the movement.
The assessee's position was that the consignment was originally intended for its place of business within Raipur district, and that such intra-district movement was exempt from the e-way bill requirement by virtue of Chhattisgarh Notification No. F 10-31/2018/CT/V(46) dated 19.06.2018, read with its corrigendum. The original transporter's goods receipt on record was substantially unfilled and carried no number, which the Tribunal noted as a relevant evidentiary gap without treating it as conclusive proof of any wrongdoing.
3. The Outward Invoices to Banda and the E-Way Bills Generated After Interception
Separately, SRS Traders issued two invoices both dated 01.09.2019 — Invoice No. 797 for 10.040 MT to Raj Traders, Banda, Uttar Pradesh, and Invoice No. 798 for 19.960 MT to A.K. Brothers, also at Banda. Together, these quantities reconciled precisely with the 30 MT covered by the supplier's invoice, including diameter-wise breakdowns. Two corresponding e-way bills for vehicle UP-90-T-7647, marked as "Regular" with Banda as destination, were generated at 3:01 p.m. and 3:07 p.m. The later transporter's goods receipts bearing Nos. 3695 and 3696 contained substantially fuller details than the original blank receipt.
The central factual controversy was that interception of the vehicle admittedly preceded the generation of these two e-way bills. The assessee maintained that the Banda sales had arisen mid-journey and that the driver had been instructed to halt while the invoices and e-way bills were being prepared before onward movement commenced. However, the assessee was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation at the final hearing as to how the goods could have been allocated diameter-wise into the exact quantities of 10.040 MT and 19.960 MT without the consignment having been physically unloaded.
4. The Disputed Place and Time of Interception
A significant area of factual inconsistency related to where and when the interception took place. In its letter dated 04.09.2019, the assessee stated that the vehicle was stopped near an Indian Petrol Pump at Sankara and was on a Raipur-bound journey. However, the appeal memorandum placed the halt and inspection near "Raipur, Simga, Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar," and the first appellate order referred to Simga, recording that the driver's statement indicated a Banda-bound movement. During the final hearing, Simga was again referred to. Different estimates placed the time of interception at around 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. respectively, and neither side was able to produce an independently verifiable contemporaneous record fixing the precise time and location.
The scan of FORM GST MOV-09 was found to contain an altered time entry, the authorship of which could not be attributed without examination of the original document. The first appellate order compounded matters by recording interception on 17.08.2019 at about 1:45 p.m., despite all transactional and detention documents pertaining to 01.09.2019. It also incorrectly identified the vehicle and inadvertently referred to Section 122(1)(ii) — an error the respondent conceded at the final hearing was not intentional.
The Tribunal held that these chronological and locational inconsistencies, taken together with the unresolved exemption defence, prevented a straightforward affirmation of concurrent findings by the two lower authorities.