Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Jaya Traders Through Its Proprietor Mr. Vishwanath Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner Grade-2 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges seizure of goods (Para 3) |
| 2. petitioner argues against seizure (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondent supports seizure (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court reviews evidence (Para 13) |
| 5. court notes lack of evidence (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 6. burden of proof on petitioner (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Writ Tax No. 1022 of 2021
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 bil
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.
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.
Minor errors in e-way bills do not justify detention under Section 129 of the CGST Act if the goods are otherwise properly documented.
Detention and seizure of goods in transit under GST requires clear evidence of contravention; mere discrepancies in documentation cannot justify such actions.
Procedural compliance in tax documentation is mandatory; failure to fill an e-way bill's section warrants penalty under tax law.
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.
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
