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.

JUDGMENT :

Piyush Agrawal, J.

1. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Similar controversy is involved in all the writ petitions, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by a common judgement treating Writ Tax No. 1022 of 2021, as leading case.

Writ Tax No. 1022 of 2021

3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST/110/2020-21 (A.Y. 2021-22) under Section129 (3) of IGST/CGST Act .

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a proprietorship firm having GSTIN No. 18BPUPT4581B1ZB and is engaged in the business of trading of pan masala and scented tobacco. He submits that in the normal course of business, the petitioner has received an order for supply of pan masala and scented tobacco from various registered dealers situated at Delhi and in pursuance of the aforesaid order tax invoice dated 15.9.2021 was raised on which IGST, cess was charged. Since the value of the goods was less than the prescribed limit, therefore, e-way bill was not generated and through tax invoice nos. 41 to 45 dated 15.9.2021, the goods were transported from West Bengal/ Assam to New Delhi and during its onward journey the same was transshipped at Kanpur where the same was intercepted. The statement of the truck driver was recorded wherein he stated that the goods were loaded from Kanpur and on the said premise, show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner submitted its reply that crossing challan prescribed under the Act was accompanying the goods showing that the goods were transshipped at Kanpur during its onward journey to Delhi and since the value of the goods was less than Rs. 50,000/- e-way bill was not required to accompany the goods, hence the proceedings cannot be initiated. He submits that the goods were seized on the ground of under valuation, which is beyond the power of the detaining / seizing authority. He submits that against the penalty order, an appeal was filed, which has been dismissed without considering the material on record.

5. He submits that the authorities have misperceived certain facts, which are beyond the record. In the seizure proceeding under Section 129 of the Act, the authority cannot seize the goods on the ground of under valuation.

6. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgements of this Court in the following cases :-

(i) S/s S.K. Trading Co. and another Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade -2 (Appeal) and another ( Writ Tax No. 1464 of 2022 ) decided on 16.3.2023, (ii) M/s Maa Aabe Vs. State of UP , Neutral Citation No. 2024: AHC: 158372 -DB (iii) M/s Shamhu Saran Agarwal and company Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade -2 , Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:15975 .

7. He further relied upon the judgements of other High Court :-

(i) Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of K.P. Sugandh Ltd. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh , 2020 NTN (Vol. 74) 372 (ii) Kerala High Court in Best Sellers (Cochin) Private Ltd. Vs. Assistant State Tax Officer, 2021 NTN (Vol 75) -360 and Sameer Mat Industries and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2018 NTN (vol 66) -69.

8. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and submits that it is simply a case of tax evasion. He submits that goods were detained and seized not only on the ground of under valuation but also on the ground of non-genuine document