Authorities must substantiate claims of tax evasion in goods seizure cases; mere suspicions are insufficient without concrete evidence.

JUDGMENT

Piyush Agrawal, J.

Heard Mr. Suyash Agrawal for the petitioner and Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned ACSC for State/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 this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 21.1.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade -2 (Appeal) Commercial Tax, Judicial Division Basti, respondent no. 1 and the order dated 11.11.2020 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Basti, respondent no.2.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a proprietorship firm and is registered under AGST (Assam Goods and Services Tax) Act having GSTIN No. 18AEKPM5808E1ZE. The goods in question were sold by the petitioner to M/s Shlok Brothers, Delhi through e-way bill no. 881122952901 generated on 31.10.2020 and G.R. No. 0207 of M/s Nagpur Assam Road lines, Nagpur being Truck No. RJ47 GA 2801. The goods in transit were intercepted on 3.11.2020 at Gorakhpur and thereafter on 11.11.2020 detention order was passed in Form GST MOV-06 on the ground that documents shown by the driver of truck relating to the consignment and both the parties were not verified by the competent officer, therefore, it was found that the goods were transported with intention to evade tax. Thereafter GST MOV- 07 was issued and order was passed on GST MOV-09 seizing the goods and for its release security as well as penalty was imposed. Against the said order, an appeal has been preferred, which has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that goods in question were transported through Truck No. RJ47 GA2801 and was accompanied with genuine prescribed documents as per the provisions of the Act, however, the authorities in order to harass the petitioner had seized the goods in question. He further submits that the purchaser is registered firm and regularly filing the returns and there is no irregularity in the transaction. He further submits that electronic credit ledger was also brought on record which shows that the purchaser doing its business prior to the date of present purchase and subsequently thereafter but without considering the material on record, the impugned order has been passed illegally. . He prays for allowing the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supported the impugned order and submitted that the proceeding has rightly been initiated and at the time of detention as well as seizure of the goods, the purchaser at Delhi was not doing any business. He further submits that documents filed thereafter is only an afterthought. He prays for dismissal of this writ petition.

7. The Court has perused the records.

8. Admittedly, the goods in question was purchased by M/s Shlok Brothers, Delhi from the petitioner and along with the goods requisite documents as provided under the Act was accompanied and its genuineness was not disputed however after detention of the goods a report was called from the Delhi G.S.T. Authority about genuineness of purchaser ( M/s Shlok Brothers, Delhi) and same was given but at the time of inspection no business activity was found at the disclosed place of firm and on the said basis, the goods were seized and demand as well as security were raised for release of goods. The petitioner has brought on record the various documents which shows that the purchaser was registered dealer and its registration is