KRISHNA MURARI,J. - (1.) It is contended that the value of the cess being three digit in number was not accepted on the E-way bill portal, hence value of the goods in the generated E-way bill only included CGST and SGST, but not Cess, however, in the invoice, cess @ 160% was disclosed. It is further submitted that due to this technical problem in the E-way bill portal, the seizing authority drew a wrong presumption that the value of the goods declared in the E-way bill is much lower than what has been declared in the invoice. It is also submitted that upon encountering the technical problem on the E-way bill portal, the petitioner wrote a letter to the help desk, but that was of no avail. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner can not be penalized for technical fault in the E-way bill portal and CGST, SGST and Cess were duly paid.
(2.) From the facts, we find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and the issue requires scrutiny. Sri O.P. Srivastava, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents no. 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 may file counter affidavit within six weeks.
(3.) Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Union of India shall also explain in his counter affidavit the justification for charging the cess @ 160%. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.;