DRAFT APPEAL AGAINST EXPIRED E-WAY BILL

Draft Appeal against Expired E-Way Bill

[See Rule 108(1)]

Form GST APL – 01

Appeal to Appellate Authority

1 GSTIN/TEMPORARY ID/UIN

2 Legal name of the appellant

3 TRADE NAME, IF ANY

4 Address

5 Order No & Date

6 Designation of the officer passing the

order appealed against

7 Date of communication of the order

appealed against

8 Name of the authorized representative

9 Details of the case under dispute

9(1) Brief issue of the case under dispute

9(2) Description and classification of goods/

services in dispute

9(3) Period of dispute Privacy - Terms

 9(4) Amount under dispute:

10 Whether the appellant wishes to be heard

in person

11 Statement of facts As per Annexure A

12 Grounds of appeal As per Annexure B

13 Prayer As per grounds of appeal

14. Amount of demand created, admitted and disputed –

Particulars Particulars Central State Integrated Cess Total

of Tax Tax Tax Amount
demand

/refund Amount a) Tax/ 0 0 0

of Cess
demand
created b) 0 0 0

(A) Interest

c) 0 0 0
Penalty

d) Fees 0 0 0 0

e) 0 0 0 0 0
Other
charges

Amount a) Tax/ 0 0 0 0 0
of Cess
demand
admitted b) 0 0 0 0 0

(B) Interest

c) 0 0 0 0 0
Penalty

d) Fees 0 0 0 0 0
 e) 0 0 0 0 0
Other
charges

Amount a) Tax/ 0 0
of Cess
demand
disputed b) 0 0

(C) Interest

c) 0 0
Penalty

d) Fees 0 0 0 0 0

e) 0 0 0 0 0
Other
charges

15. Details of payment of admitted amount and pre-deposit: – NIL

(a) Details of payment required

Particulars Central State/UT Integrated Cess Total

Tax Tax Tax Amount

a) Admitted Tax/Cess
Amount

Interest

Penalty

Fees

Other
Charge

b) Pre Tax/Cess
Deposit (10% of
disputed
Amount)
(b) Details of payment of admitted amount and pre-deposit (pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax
and cess):

(b.1) Detail of payment of admitted amount – NIL

S. Description Tax Paid Debit Amount of tax paid

No. Payable through Entry
cash/credit No Central State/UT Integrated
ledger Tax Tax Tax

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Integrated Cash
Tax Ledger

Credit
Ledger

2 Central Tax Cash

Ledger

Credit
Ledger

3 State/UT Cash
Tax Ledger

Credit
Ledger

4 Cess Cash
Ledger

Credit
Ledger

(b.2) Detail of payment of pre deposit (pre-deposited 100% of the disputed tax and cess) –

S. Description Tax Paid Debit Amount of tax paid

No. Payable through Entry
cash/credit No Central State/UT Integrated
ledger Tax Tax Tax
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Integrated Cash 0 0
Tax Ledger

Credit
Ledger

2 Central Tax Cash

Ledger

Credit
Ledger

3 State/UT Cash
Tax Ledger

Credit
Ledger

4 Cess Cash
Ledger

Credit
Ledger

(c) Interest, penalty, late fee and any other amount payable and paid;

S. Description Amount Payable Debit Amount Paid

No. Entry
Integrated Central State Cess No Integrated Cen
Tax Tax Tax Tax Tax

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Interest 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0

2 Penalty 0 0 0 0

3 Late fees 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0

4 Others 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0
 16 Whether appeal is being filed after the YES
prescribed period

17 If “Yes” in item 16

17(a) Period of delay

17(b) Reasons for delay

Verification

I ________, Prop. of M/s. ___________, hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the
information given here in above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and
nothing has been concealed there from.

Thanks & Regards

For Company Name

Authorized person

Designation

Annexure A

1. facts of the case

M/s. _______ (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) is filling present appeal against the
impugned order in original in Form GST MOV-09 issued vide Order No. _______ on dated:
__-___-2023, Financial Year 2023-24. The said order is enclosed as Annexure 1.

The appellant has been served a Detention Notice (hereinafter referred as SCN) Reference
No. ______, dated: __-___-2023 under Form GST MOV-06 of Central Goods and Service
Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred as Act) mentioning Tax of Rs. _______ and Penalty of Rs.
______.

The reasons mentioned in the notice is that, “E-way Bill tendered but expired” and a Show
Cause Notice was received having Reference No. _________, dated: __-___-2023, issued
under Section 129(3) of Karnataka Goods and Services Act 2017 vide Form MOV-07
mentioning Tax of Rs. ______ and Penalty of Rs. ______ under Section 129(1)(a) and Rs.
______ under Section 129(1)(b). A copy of the same is also enclosed as Annexure 2.
 1. While issuing Show Cause Notice, the following objections were raise-E-way Bill tendered
but it is expired.

Against the above mentioned show cause notice, we have filed an interim reply on dated: __-
___-2023 and in the said reply the appellant submitted that the Show Cause Notice was itself
incorrect in the law and the multiple penalty that has been imposed on us is beyond the
provisions of the law. Para 6 of the Show Cause Notice mentions the demand of penalty under
Section 129(1)(a) & (b), both. But as per the statute, only one penalty can be imposed,
invoking Section 129 of the Act. So, the notice for the said penalty is not clear in itself and not
in accordance with law. With the detailed reply, we have also demanded for the personal
hearing.

Against the above Show Cause Notice, it has also been submitted that there was no intention
to evade the payment of tax from our side, so the Section 129 is not applicable in our case. A
copy of the reply is also enclosed as Annexure-3 for your reference.

The above mentioned reply for the non-application of Section 129 was rejected by Revenue
without giving the opportunity of being heard in-person. Further, an order has been passed
vide Order No. ________, dated: __-___-2023, levying Tax of Rs. ______ and Penalty of
Rs. ______ u/s 129(1)(a). The demand was not at all accepted by us, but only to secure the
release of the detained conveyance at the earliest, we paid the demand as soon as our
submission was rejected by the department.

Annexure –B

2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The order passed under Form GST MOV-09 by the Proper Officer is in violation of Principal
of Natural Justice such as No Opportunity of Personal hearing was given to the Appellant.

The order was not proper as Section 129 cannot be invoked in case of “Expiry of E-way bill
case” as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as multiple High Courts.

There was no evasion of tax as established by the Lord PO in the SCN issued as well as in the
MOV-09 demand order. Hence, Section 129 of the Act is not applicable in our case.

To grant relief by passing an order to set aside the order passed by the PO in MOV-09 and the
refund of the total amount paid by us.

3. provisions related to the case

SECTION 75: GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF TAX

(1) Where the service of notice or issuance of order is stayed by an order of a court or
Appellate Tribunal, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the period
specified in sub-sections (2) and (10) of section 73 or sub-sections (2) and (10) of section 74,
as the case may be.

(2) Where any Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court concludes that the notice
issued under sub-section (1) of section 74 is not sustainable for the reason that the charges
of fraud or any wilful-misstatement or suppression of facts to evade tax has not been
established against the person to whom the notice was issued, the proper officer shall
determine the tax payable by such person, deeming as if the notice were issued under sub-
section (1) of section 73.

(3) Where any order is required to be issued in pursuance of the direction of the Appellate
Authority or Appellate Tribunal or a court, such order shall be issued within two years
from the date of communication of the said direction.

(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in

writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse
decision is contemplated against such person.

(5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax,
grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in
writing:

Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person
during the proceedings.

(6) The proper officer, in his order, shall set out the relevant facts and the basis of his
decision.

(7) 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 shall be confirmed on the grounds other
than the grounds specified in the notice.

(8) Where the Appellate Authority or Appellate Tribunal or court modifies the amount of
tax determined by the proper officer, the amount of interest and penalty shall stand
modified accordingly, taking into account the amount of tax so modified.

(9) The interest on the tax short paid or not paid shall be payable whether or not specified
in the order determining the tax liability.
(10) The adjudication proceedings shall be deemed to be concluded, if the order is not issued
within three years as provided for in sub-section (10) of section 73 or within five years as
provided for in sub-section (10) of section 74.

(11) An issue on which the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court
has given its decision which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in some other
proceedings and an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme
Court against such decision of the Appellate Authority or the Appellate Tribunal or the High
Court is pending, the period spent between the date of the decision of the Appellate
Authority and that of the Appellate Tribunal or the date of decision of the Appellate
Tribunal and that of the High Court or the date of the decision of the High Court and that of
the Supreme Court shall be excluded in computing the period referred to in subsection (10)
of section 73 or sub-section (10) of section 74 where proceedings are initiated by way of
issue of a show cause notice under the said sections.

(12) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 73 or section 74, where any amount of
self-assessed tax in accordance with a return furnished under section 39 remains unpaid,
either wholly or partly, or any amount of interest payable on such tax remains unpaid, the
same shall be recovered under the provisions of section 79.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression “self-assessed tax” shall
include the tax payable in respect of details of outward supplies furnished under section 37,
but not included in the return furnished under section 39.

(13) Where any penalty is imposed under section 73 or section 74, no penalty for the same
act or omission shall be imposed on the same person under any other provision of this Act.

SECTION 129: DETENTION, SEIZURE AND RELEASE OF GOODS AND

CONVEYANCES IN TRANSIT

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, where any person transports any
goods or stores any goods while they are in transit in contravention of the provisions of this
Act or the rules made thereunder, all such goods and conveyance used as a means of
transport for carrying the said goods and documents relating to such goods and
conveyance shall be liable to detention or seizure and after detention or seizure, shall be
released,-

(a) on payment of penalty equal to two hundred per cent. of the tax payable on such goods
and, in case of exempted goods, on payment of an amount equal to two per cent. of the
value of goods or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the
goods comes forward for payment of such penalty;
 (b) on payment of penalty equal to fifty per cent. of the value of the goods or two hundred
per cent. of the tax payable on such goods, whichever is higher, and in case of exempted
goods, on payment of an amount equal to five per cent. of the value of goods or twenty-five
thousand rupees, whichever is less, where the owner of the goods does not come forward
for payment of such penalty;

(c) upon furnishing a security equivalent to the amount payable under clause (a) or clause
(b) in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that no such goods or conveyance shall be detained or seized without serving an
order of detention or seizure on the person transporting the goods.

(2) Omitted.

(3) The proper officer detaining or seizing goods or conveyance shall issue a notice within
seven days of such detention or seizure, specifying the penalty payable, and thereafter, pass
an order within a period of seven days from the date of service of such notice, for payment
of penalty under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1).

(4) No penalty shall be determined under sub-section (3) without giving the
person concerned an opportunity of being heard.

(5) On payment of amount referred in sub-section (1), all proceedings in respect of the
notice specified in sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be concluded.

(6) Where the person transporting any goods or the owner of such goods fails to pay the
amount of penalty under sub-section (1) within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the
copy of the order passed under sub-section (3), the goods or conveyance so detained or
seized shall be liable to be sold or disposed of otherwise, in such manner and within such
time as may be prescribed, to recover the penalty payable under sub-section (3):

Provided that the conveyance shall be released on payment by the transporter of penalty
under sub-section (3) or one lakh rupees, whichever is less:

Provided further that where the detained or seized goods are perishable or hazardous in
nature or are likely to depreciate in value with passage of time, the said period of fifteen
days may be reduced by the proper officer.

4. OUR SUBMISSION AND CASE LAWS

It is respectfully submitted that as per the provisions of Section 129, Penalty cannot be
invoked in case of expiry of E-way Bill. An expiry of E-way Bill does not mean that there is an
 evasion of tax, so the demand created on the allegations of the expiry of E-way Bill is not
proper and against the provisions of the Act.

It is respectfully provided that Opportunity of being heard is the basic right of the RTP as per
Section 75(4) of Act, without this, the order passed by the Lord Proper Officer liable to be set
aside in case of Principal of natural justice.

We would like to place emphasis on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
the case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) V. Satyam Shivam Papers (P.) Ltd. [SLP
NO. 21132 of 2021, dated: 12-01-2022], cited in 2022 Taxo.online 24 where Goods could
not be delivered within validity period of e-way bill because of traffic blockage and while
detaining goods, the GST officer kept the same in house of his relative instead of designated
place. The additional costs were imposed on Authorities in view of harassment faced by
assessee. Relevant extract of the order has been produced below for your reference:

Para 7: Upon our having made these observations, learned counsel for the petitioners has
attempted to submit that the questions of law in this case, as regards the operation and effect of
Section 129 of Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and violation by the writ petitioner,
may be kept open. The submissions sought to be made do not give rise to even a question of fact
what to say of a question of law. As noticed hereinabove, on the facts of this case, it has precisely
been found that there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioner to evade tax and
rather, the goods in question could not be taken to the destination within time for the reasons
beyond the control of the writ petitioner. When the undeniable facts, including the traffic blockage
due to agitation, are taken into consideration, the State alone remains responsible for not providing
smooth passage of traffic.

We would like to place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High court of Allahabad in
the case of Globe Panel Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ
Tax No. 141 of 2023, dated: 05-Feb-2024] cited in 2024 Taxo.online 203 where out of two
e-way bills, one had expired due to breakdown of vehicle but there was technical violation of
non-generation of a fresh e-way bill, since goods in vehicle matched description of e-invoices
and e-way bills and authorities could not indicate any intention on part of assessee to evade
tax, mere such a technical violation by itself could not lead to imposition of penalty.

We would like to place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High court of Allahabad in
the case of Sun Flag Iron and Steel Compnay Ltd. vs State of Uttar Pradesh [Writ
Tax No. 837 of 2023, dated: 09-Nov-2023] cited in 2023 Taxo.online 1207 it was held that
where goods and vehicle were accompanied with valid e-way bill and delay in transit was due
to an unavoidable circumstance of breakdown, penalty for carrying goods with expired e-way
bill could not be imposed.
 We would like to place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High court of Madras in the
case of Vectra Computer Solutions V. The Commissioner of Commercial [W.P. NO.
9531 of 2020, dated: 25-03-2021] cited in 2021 Taxo.online 461, Hon’ble Court set aside
the order passed by the PO because the Opportunity of hearing is not given to the RTP,
extract of order is reproduced below in Para 5, 6 and 7.

Para5: Though very many grounds have been urged on either side, the order impugned in this writ
petition has to be quashed on the simple ground that no personal hearing was granted. The learned
counsel appearing for the drew my attention to Section 75(4) of the CENTRAL GOODS AND
SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 which states that an opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a
request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse
decision is contemplated against such person.

Para 6: I carefully went through the contents of the notice dated 29.10.2019 issued by the third
respondent. Nowhere in the said notice, personal hearing has been afforded to the petitioner
herein. In the impugned order also, it is nowhere mentioned that such opportunity was afforded to
the petitioner.

Para 7: On this sole ground, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The matter is
remitted to the file of the third respondent to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. This writ
petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Further, we would like to place reliance on the decision of ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT order in case of Korrapathi Janardhana Naidu V. The State of Andhra
Pradesh and other [W.P. 9011 of 2021 dated: 28-04-2021] cited in 2021 Taxo.online
565, Hon’ble order set aside and remind back the order passing by the PO without
opportunity of being heard to the RTP, extract of order is provided below in Para 6, 7 and 8.

Para 6: According to the petitioner, he is a registered civil contractor, undertaking government

works in Water Resources Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. A perusal of the
impugned order of assessment shows that preceded by a notice dated 23.01.2020 and submission
of reply dated 23.7.2020 by the assessee, 2nd respondent -Assessing Authority passed the
impugned order of assessment.

Para 7: In order to adjudicate the issue in the present Writ Petition, it may be appropriate to refer
to Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the general provisions relating to
determination of tax. According to sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the Act, an opportunity of
hearing should be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with
tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. In the instant
case, though the petitioner herein submitted his reply to the notice issued by 2nd respondent prior
to passing the impugned order, the Assessing Authority, while referring to the objections raised
therein, simply stated that they were not considered, and eventually, determined the liability as
proposed in the show cause notice. In the considered opinion of this Court, 2nd respondent herein,
before doing so, ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, as mandated
under sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017. In the case on hand, 2nd respondent
adhered to the said provision of law in breach. The said action is also a patent violation of
principles of natural justice, as such, the contention of the learned Government Pleader as regards
the availability of alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, deserves
to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. On the sole ground of failure to adhere to the provisions
of sub-section (4) of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order and to remand the matter to the Assessing Authority for passing appropriate
orders afresh.

Para 8: For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of
assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-II, Nellore-2nd respondent
herein, bearing Order No. XXXX, dated _ _ _, and remanding the matter to 2nd respondent for
consideration of the issue afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There
shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the
Writ Petition shall stand closed.

Reliance is to be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case
of Ajay Shaw V. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [W.P.A. 18137 of 2022, dated:
23-08-2022], cited in 2022 Taxo.online 861, where the Hon’ble court held that the E-Way
Bill being expired during transit due to break down of vehicle, demand and penalty was not
imposable in absence of any intention to evade tax. Relevant extract of the order has been
provided below:

Learned advocate appearing for the respondents could not make out any case against the petitioner
that there was any deliberate or willful intention of the petitioner to avoid and evade the tax.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case which appears from record and considering the
aforesaid two orders of this Court, this writ petition being WPA 18137 of 2022 is disposed of by
setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of the appellate authority and adjudicating authority
and as a consequence, petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of the tax and penalty
in question subject to compliance of legal formalities.

Reliance is to be placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case
of Sanskruthi Motors V. Joint Commissioner [W.P. NO. 17223 of 2022, dated: 17-08-
2022] cited in 2022 Taxo.online 840 where the Hon’ble Court held that Detention,
demand of tax and imposition of penalty for transportation with expired e-way bill were not
correct. Therefore, the High Court directed authority to re-consider quantum of penalty as
there was no finding on attempt to evade tax.
 We would further like to place emphasis on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of Nirmal Kumar Mahaveer Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Central
Goods and Services Tax and Ors. [W.P. NO. 8585/2022, dated: 23-08-2022] cited in
2022 Taxo.online 863 , where the Hon’ble court held that the genuine reason for the
expiry of E-way Bill is allowed and penalty u/s 129 cannot be imposed on such cases. The
relevant extract of the order is reproduced below for your reference:

Para 15: It is not in dispute, that against the subject goods, the tax stands paid, and that the
impugned demand has been raised, as noticed above, only for the reason that at the time of
interception, the e-way bill was not valid.

Para 16: This is not a case where the petitioner intended to evade tax. However, the impugned
demand seeks not only the payment of tax, but also penalty.

Para 17: Given the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view, that the petitioner needs to be
given another chance to establish, as to why the subject goods did not reach their designated
designation before the expiry of the e-way bill.

Para 18: Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.12.2021 passed by respondent no. 2 is set
aside.

Further, we would like to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the case of Daya Shanker Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh [WRIT
PETITION NO. 12324 of 2022, dated: 10-08-2022] cited in 2022 Taxo.online 819 where
the Hon’ble court ordered that the E-Way Bill being expired during transit due to
circumstances beyond assessee's control, penalty was to be set aside in absence of any
fraudulent intent and negligence on part of assessee. Relevant extract of the order has been
produced below for your reference:

Para 25: We find substantial force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that
present case has similarity with that of the above cases decided by Telangana and Calcutta High
Court. The respondents could not establish that there exist any element of evasion of tax,
fraudulent intent or negligence on the part of the petitioner. In this backdrop, the impugned
notice/order could not have been passed.

Para 26: The principles of natural justice were statutorily recognized and ingrained in section
126(1)(3) of the Act. The Law Makers have taken care of doctrine of proportionality while bringing
sub-section (1) of section 126 in the Statute Book. The punishment should be commensurate to the
breach is the legislative mandate as per sub-section (1) of section 126.

Para 27: In the instant case, the delay of almost 4:30 hours before which E-way Bill stood expired
appears to be bonafide and without establishing fraudulent intent and negligence on the part of
petitioner, the impugned notice/order could not have been passed.

Para 28: Resultantly, the penalty imposed by the order dated 25-5-2022 (Annexure P/11) is set
aside. The amount of penalty already deposited by the petitioner be refunded back to him within 30
days failing which it will carry 6% interest till the time of actual payment.

Reliance is to be placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the
case of Ashok Kumar Surekha Vs. Assistant Commissioner [W.P.A. NO. 11085 of
2021, dated: 01-03-2022], cited in 2022 Taxo.online 214 where the Hon’ble High Court
held in the case in the relevant para provided below:

Para 2: In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the appellate
Commissioner dated March 18, 2021 confirming the original order dated September 11, 2019
passed by the adjudicating authority under section 129 of the West Bengal Goods and Services Act,
2017 for detention of the goods in question on the grounds that the e-way bill relating to the
consignment in question had expired one day before, i.e. in the midnight of September 8, 2019, and
that the goods was detained in the morning of September 9, 2019 on the grounds that the e-way bill
has expired which is even less than one day and extension could not be made and petitioner
submits that delay of few hours even less than a day of expiry of the validity of the tenure of the e-
way bill was not deliberate and willful and was due to break down of the vehicle in question and
there was no intention of any evasion of tax on the part of the petitioner.

Para 3: The petitioner in support of his contention has relied on an unreported decision of the
Supreme Court dated January 12, 2022 passed in Special Leave Appeal (C) No(s). 21132/2021
(Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Ors. v. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Limited & Anr.).

Para 4: Learned advocate appearing for the respondent could not make out a case against the
petitioner that the aforesaid violation was willful and deliberate or with a specific material that the
intention of the petitioner was for evading tax.

Para 5: Considering the submission of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, this
writ petition being WPA No. 11085 of 2021 is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of
the appellate authority dated March 18, 2021 as well as the order of the adjudicating authority
dated September 11, 2019 and as a consequence, the petitioner will be entitled to get the refund of
the penalty and tax paid on protest subject to compliance of all legal formalities.

5. Conclusion

Considering the facts presented, legal arguments made, and the precedents set forth through
various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts across different jurisdictions, and
the provisions under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it is unequivocally clear that
the actions taken under the impugned order do not align with the principles of justice, equity, and
good conscience.

Firstly, the imposition of penalties under Section 129 for an expired E-Way Bill, especially when
there was no intent to evade tax, contradicts the very essence of natural justice and fairness. The
judgements cited, including those from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various High
Courts, underline a significant legal principle: penalties and stringent actions are not justified in
the absence of a deliberate attempt to evade taxes.

Secondly, the denial of an opportunity for a personal hearing before making the impugned order
goes against the basic tenets of natural justice. The provisions of Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017,
stress the importance of such an opportunity, making it clear that any decision made in its absence
is unsustainable in law.

Given the above, it is respectfully submitted that the impugned order, issued in violation of the
principles of natural justice and without considering the appellant's lack of intent to evade tax,
deserves to be quashed. The appellant has demonstrated, through both arguments and legal
precedents, that the penalty imposed is not in accordance with the law.

Therefore, we humbly request the Hon'ble Appellate Authority to allow this appeal, quash the
impugned order, and grant the appellant the necessary relief as per the grounds stated. It is also
prayed that the Hon'ble Authority consider the legal positions and precedents cited in support of
our case and provide us with an opportunity to be heard, in line with the principles of justice and
fairness.

We trust that the Hon'ble Authority will find merit in our appeal and render justice by setting aside
the demand order appealed against and granting such relief as deemed fit in the circumstances.

6. ACCEPTANCE AND REQUEST

In the view of foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the appeal may please be allowed and
Hon’ble Appellate Authority is also prayed:

1. To quash and set aside the demand order appealed against appellant.

2. That necessary relief/s as per aforesaid grounds may be granted and/or other relief/s
deemed fit and proper in the eyes of law may be granted to the appellant.

We would request you to consider our above mentioned submission and we would further
request your lordship to provide us “Opportunity of Being Heard”.

Thanks & Regards

For ……

Director/ Authorized Signatory

Annexure:

1. Annexure1- Order
2. Annexure2- Show Cause Notice
3. Annexure3- Copy of the reply

Date: __-___-2023

Place: _______