9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax liability under the provisions of the Act and on that count the status of the petitioner in seeking release of the goods claiming himself to be the owner, if at this stage is recognized by the respondents, is likely to prejudice the plea/stand which has been taken by the respondent department. The status of the petitioner as owner of the goods is in question inasmuch as while the petitioner relies on E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 for claiming himself the consignee, the claim of the respondents is that the goods already stand delivered insofar as the E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 is concerned - Therefore, the claim of the petitioner as owner qua the goods which are loaded on the detained vehicle has to be determined by the competent authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of the fact that E-way bill was dated 7/12/2019 and it was claimed that the vehicle broke down on the same date at the starting point and on account of contradictory statements, the documents were also required to be examined. The petitioner approached the respondents for release of goods along with vehicle and made a written request on 16/2/2019 (Annex.5) under the provisions of Section 129 of RGST Act. It is alleged in the petition that despite the petitioner being entitled for release of goods under Section 129 (3) of the RGST Act, the respondent no.4 acted unreasonably in not releasing the goods in question. During the pendency of the petition, an additional affidavit was filed placing on record certain other documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. It is submitted that from the material which has come on record, it is apparent that goods are from one M/s. Sunil Oil Mills, Goluwala and though EWay bill pertains to the petitioner, from the statements of driver, records of the Toll Plaza and GPS location of the driver/goods-incharge it is apparent that the goods which were loaded by M/s Sunil Oil Mills on 7/12/2019 have already been delivered to the petitioner on 8/12/2019 and in second round the vehicle (oil tanker) was refilled for some other firm and it started its journey under the same E-way bill and other documents only with a motive to avoid tax liability and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Submissions have been made that pursuant to the notice MOV-6 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the copious material produced by the respondents shows the modus operandi being employed for the purpose of evasion of the tax liability under the provisions of the Act and on that count the status of the petitioner in seeking release of the goods claiming himself to be the owner, if at this stage is recognized by the respondents, is likely to prejudice the plea/stand which has been taken by the respondent department. The status of the petitioner as owner of the goods is in question inasmuch as while the petitioner relies on E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 for claiming himself the consignee, the claim of the respondents is that the goods already stand delivered insofar as the E-way bill dated 7/12/2019 is concerned. Therefore, the claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
