SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 2548

PRITINKER DIWAKER, ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Sanjay Sales Agency – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Shubham Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Shubham Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of the State Respondent No.1.

2. The writ petition is aggrieved by the penalty order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Ghaziabad, Respondent No.2 in Form MOV-09 under Section 129 (1)(b) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 whereby and whereunder penalty of Rs.37,59,792/- has been levied upon the petitioner by not treating the petitioner to be the owner of goods. Admittedly, the goods were duly accompanied by the tax invoice, e-way bill and bilty issued in the name of the petitioner as the consignor and the goods were in transit through the State of U.P. during its movement from Delhi to Haldwani and as such, there was no intention to evade tax. It is further contended that the petitioner is the owner of the goods and is ready and willing to deposit penalty under protest under Section 129 (1) (a) to get the goods released considering the perishable nature of the goods and diminishing of its value substantially with the onset of monsoons. Strong reliance has bee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top