2018 (5) TMI 1615 - HC - GST

Personal presence of Officials - Generation of E-way bill - Section 129 (3) of the UPGST 2017 - Held that - we required the presence of respondent 3 to explain his conduct on the allegations made against him in the pleadings and the respondent no. 2 to suggest the ways and means to remedy the situation but it appears that we were misled by the petitioner and at the time of first hearing neither the fact had been pointed out by learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents nor we noticed the same and without noticing the fact we required the respondents no. 2 & 3 to be present in person. Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General has also placed before us the previous record of the assessee for the period 1999 till 26.03.2018 showing that penalty has been levied for evasion of the tax against the petitioner firm at least 25 times which goes to show that he is a habitual evader of tax. Personal appearance of both the officials on future date is exempted.

Summary

Issues: Contradiction in the pleadings regarding the description of the petitioner, allegations of evasion of tax, misleading conduct of the petitioner, and potential imposition of costs and contempt proceedings.

In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the court addressed the issue of contradiction in the pleadings regarding the description of the petitioner. The court noted that there was a discrepancy between the various documents, with some naming Sri Fazil as the proprietor of the firm M/s Ashoka Enterprises, while others mentioned Sri Ashok Kumar Agarwal. This raised doubts about the actual proprietor of the firm, leading to confusion and inconsistency in the case.

Furthermore, the court examined the allegations of tax evasion against the petitioner. The Additional Advocate General presented the previous record of the assessee, indicating that penalties had been imposed multiple times for tax evasion, suggesting a pattern of habitual tax evasion by the petitioner. This revelation raised concerns about the petitioner's compliance with tax laws and highlighted the seriousness of the allegations.

Moreover, the court addressed the issue of the petitioner's misleading conduct. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner's actions, noting that the petitioner had misrepresented facts in the pleadings. The court highlighted discrepancies in the statements made by the petitioner, particularly regarding the generation of E-way bills and the submission of replies to show cause notices. The court emphasized the importance of truthfulness and transparency in legal proceedings.

Lastly, the court discussed the potential consequences of the discrepancies and misleading conduct. The court directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit within ten days to bring all relevant facts on record. The court also allowed for a rejoinder affidavit to be filed subsequently. The court warned that if the allegations and anomalies pointed out by the Additional Advocate General were proven true, heavy exemplary costs and contempt proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner in the next hearing. This highlighted the gravity of the situation and the potential legal repercussions for the petitioner's actions.