Back
ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, SYED AFTAB HUSAIN RIZVI
G M R Enterprise – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. 2 of 2023)
Heard.
2. Petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amendment during the course of the day.
3. Application stands allowed.
Order on Writ Petition
4. Petitioner claims to be a registered dealer engaged in sale and purchase of arecanut. It appears that certain goods were intercepted during transportation within the state of U.P. Petitioner alleges that such goods were accompanied by tax invoices and eway bill, which clearly indicates the ownership of petitioner over the goods in transit. The department nevertheless proceeded to issue notices in the name of the driver and subsequently orders determining liability of tax have been passed on the premise that the consignee has not accepted the goods to have been purchased by it. The department, therefore, has treated the goods to be not traceable to a registered dealer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a circular issued by the department, dated 13.03.2019, which contains a clarification that if an invoice or any other specified document is accompanying the consignee goods, then either the consignor or the consignee should be deemed to be the owner. The c
The consignee of goods is deemed the owner if invoices and e-way bills accompany the consignment, contrary to penalty orders based on inadequate findings.
The court determined that compliance with documentation allows a transporter to be regarded as the owner of goods, affecting the imposition of penalties under the C.G.S.T. Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
