Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Ayann Traders – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, along with Sri Varun Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 15.05.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal)- 05, Commercial Tax, Kanpur in proceedings under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called as "Act of 2017").
3. The petitioner before this Court is a registered dealer and had sold 300 bags of Pan Masala valued at Rs.33,81,000/- to a dealer at Meghalaya. A tax invoice was generated on 08.04.2018 under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called "IGST Act") charging 28% IGST and 60% Cess on the transaction.
4. According to petitioner, the goods were handed over to transporter M/s Bombay Kandla Transport Pvt. Ltd. for transporting the goods to Meghalaya through Truck No.NL01N/6504 and a E-Way bill was generated on 08.04.2018 itself. The transporter, on the same day, also issued a bility for transporting the goods to Meghalaya.
5. According to petitioner, the Vehicle No.NL01N/6504 was used for transporting fruits a
E-way bill is mandatory for transporting goods; failure to carry it raises a presumption of tax evasion, which must be rebutted by the transporter.
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.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
For imposition of penalties under the GST Act, intent to evade tax must be established; mere expiration of documents does not suffice.
Technical errors in e-way bills do not justify seizure or penalty if no discrepancies in goods are found, reinforcing the purpose of tracking goods movement under GST.
Point of law: presumption could not be drawn on the basis of the existence of the e-way bills though there did not exist evidence of actual transaction performed and though there is no statutory pres....
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
