Movement of goods, Goods and Services Tax - GST

[Puneet Goyal]

How to prove movement of goods to department in case of supply in same city (as in normal practice in Punjab, no bilty or transporter receipt provided in case of supply in same city) and pre e-way period ?

Is there any clarification, circular or notification where we can see what documents are required to prove movement of goods ?

Posts / Replies

[Amit Agrawal]

I find it difficult to believe that 'as in normal practice in Punjab, no bilty or transporter receipt provided in case of supply in same city' (assuming you are referring to transport of goods through GTA).

There has to be something to prove such transport is indeed took place. If you have taken transport services directly from truck / lorry owner (instead of a GTA), you must have proofs of payment such as bill of truck / lorry owner, voucher etc. where identity of such truck / lorry owner, vehicle used for transport etc. can be established along-with payment made for such expenses.

Moreover, stock / inventory and associated records - both at end of seller & buyer - can also act as 'corroborative evidence' in such matters.

These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion.

[Shilpi Jain]

Any weighment slips would be available either at your end or the customer end?

[Puneet Goyal]

The goods sold are in pcs not in weight (kg or Mt), so no weighment slips are required and available

[Padmanathan Kollengode]

As rightly stated by Ld. Amit ji, there must be some document issued by transporter.

Moreover, bills for loading or unloading the goods/ entry in the loading and unloading book maintained by loading union etc, if done by outside loading workers/ union can be used. (if done by workers of the supplier and recipient itself, it may not be available). Stock statements, gatepass, etc. can be produced as corroboratory evidence.

[Amit Agrawal]

Legal reasoning & ratio/s of Apex Court ruling, as reported at 2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT, in case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VERSUS M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, are worth noting in the context of the query raised and same is summarised in Para 15 of the judgement which reads as under:

"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in absence of any further cogent material like furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. and the actual physical movement of the goods by producing the cogent materials, the Assessing Officer was absolutely justified in denying the ITC, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Authority. Both, the second Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have materially erred in allowing the ITC despite the concerned purchasing dealers failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and failed to discharge the burden of proof as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court and the second Appellate Authority allowing the ITC are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer denying the ITC to the concerned purchasing dealers, confirmed by the first Appellate Authority are hereby restored."