Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
M/S Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And Another - Respondents
WRIT TAX NO. - 277 OF 2022.
Decided On : 03-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. goods were intercepted despite accompanying genuine documentation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on improper interception and inadequacy of evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court finds interception lacks basis as all documents were in order. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. previous rulings emphasize that assumption of tax evasion must be supported by evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final ruling quashes the order and allows the petition. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant Writ Tax is being entertained by this Court in view of the fact that G.S.T. Tribunal is not functional in the State of Uttar Pradesh pursuant to the Gazette notification of the Central Government bearing number CG-DL-E-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023.
3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 17.8.2021 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST 016/2020 A.Y. 201920, under the provisions of 129 (3) of UP G.S.T. Act, 2017.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer engaged in trading of Bidi, Match box, Tobacco, etc. In the normal course of business, petitioner received order for supply of bidi and match box from M/s Satish Chand Shelendra Kumar, Karahal Road, Mainpuri and from M/s Pawani Provisions Store, G.T. Road Chhibramau, Kannauj. Thereafter the petitioner prepared the Tax invoices no. 723 and 724 both dated 16.1.2020 as well as E-way bill no. 481104756271 and 461104755579 respectively. The said goods were loaded on Truck no. UP 76 K 5205 for transportation from Bewar Mainpuri to Karahal Mainpuri and Chhibramau, Kannauj. During onward journey, when the goods were in transit, the same were intercepted and on production of documents i.e. tax invoice and e-way bills, form GST MOV-1 was prepared on 17.1.2020, thereafter on the statement of the driver of the vehicle, the seizure/ detention order in form GST MOV-06 was passed on 17.1.2020. Thereafter form GST MOV 07 was passed and being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner GST MOV-09 dated 17.1.2020 was passed under Section 129 (3) of UP GST Act. Thereafter the petitioner immediately deposited the amount of Rs. 2,36,304.68/- under protest as demanded by the respondent no. 2. The petitioner challenged the order dated 17.1.2020 in appeal but the same has been dismissed confirming the said demand. Hence the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the goods in question were accompanying with the genuine documents such as tax invoices and e-way bills and was on its onward journey to its final destination but the same has wrongly been intercepted and vehicle was seized and thereafter penalty has been imposed on the ground that driver of the vehicle, at the time of interception, has produced only one tax invoice and e-way bill whereas the documents with regard to other item was not produced. He further submitted that it has wrongly been mentioned that the truck driver has given statement that the goods were to be unloaded in Mainpuri itself in the garb of accompanying documents. He further submits that the said fact is incorrect as statement of the truck driver has been recorded in GST MOV-01 and a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no. 2 to this writ petition, which does not supports the case of the respondent authority.
6. In support of his claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Gujrat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 19549 of 2021 (M/s Karnataka Traders v. State of Gujarat) decided on 6.1.2022 and Telengana High Court in W.P. No. 2869 of 2021, Vijay Metal v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, decided on 28.4.2021 . He submits that in the present case there is no specific provision to declare the route which is to be taken for transporting the goods. He submits that in the earlier applicabl
Detention and seizure of goods in transit under GST requires clear evidence of contravention; mere discrepancies in documentation cannot justify such actions.
Production of rectifying documents before detention of goods negates grounds for penalty under GST rules, reaffirming procedural fairness.
For proceedings under section 129 of the UPGST Act, there must be intent to evade tax established; a mere technical breach does not warrant penalties.
Authorities must substantiate claims of tax evasion in goods seizure cases; mere suspicions are insufficient without concrete evidence.
The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to establish the genuineness of documents and actual movement of goods; failure to do so justifies seizure under the IGST/CGST Act.
The absence of requisite documentation, such as the E-way Bill, does not justify detention and consequent penalties when prior judicial authority negates such action.
Intent to evade tax is a necessary condition for proceedings under Sections 129 and 130 of the CGST Act; absence of such intent invalidates penalties imposed under these sections.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Intention to evade tax is a prerequisite for imposing penalties under GST Act; mere technical issues should not warrant such penalties.
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
