9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proper officer was himself not satisfied as to the intention to evade tax being present in the facts of the case - There is nothing to dispute the claim made by the assessee that it was effecting the stock transfer of goods from Chennai to Dehradun and therefore, the goods were only passing through the State of U.P. - There is no allegation or intention on the part of the assessee to unload t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the penalty order dated 23.11.2017 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner is a trader in computer parts. It claims to be registered both at Chennai in the State of Tamil Nadu and Dehradun in the State of Uttarakhand. In respect to present dispute, the petitioner had disclosed that it was transporting computer parts from Chennai to Dehradun by way of stock transfer. These g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner again reiterated his stand of the goods being transported from Chennai to Dehradun by way of stock transfer against valid Tax Invoice, Goods Receipt and also it relied on the TDF downloaded by it. By the impugned penalty order dated 23.11.2017, the penalty has been imposed solely for reason of absence of TDF. However, the penalty order does not record any defect either in the do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first place the TDF had not been submitted by the petitioner at the stage of seizure but only at the stage of penalty in reply to the penalty notice. However, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the TDF was downloaded by the petitioner on 15.11.2017 at 10.39 pm. Also he is unable to show from the penalty order how the respondent no.4 has inferred the intention to evade tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
