9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eared from ICD, Dadri on 9.11.2015 and then sold by the consignor to the consignee on 10.11.2015, there was delay of six days in between the said sale and the date of checking. No explanation was put forth for the said delay. Lastly the stand taken was contradicted by the statement of the driver. HELD THAT:- The appellant in order to fortify the stand produced before the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal GR No. 2111 dated 9.11.2015 issued by M/s Nice Cargo Movers, New Delhi. From the GR, it rather established that the stand taken was after-thought. GR No. 2111 dated 9.11.2015 was for the earlier transaction whereas the goods were being accompanied by GR No. 19594 dated 10.11.2015 for the subsequent sale. It shows that the GR produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and proper for the authorities to impose advance tax and penalty when the goods detained were admittedly accompanied by all the required documents as per the provisions of Section 31(2) of the HVAT Act ? (b)In the facts and circumstances of the case is it just and proper for the authorities to impose penalty just on the basis of statement of the driver, even though the goods are accompanied by genuine documents ? (c) In the facts and circumstances of the case is it just and proper for the authorities to impose penalty without making detailed inquiry to establish that there was an attempt to evade tax. (d) In the facts and circumstances of the case is it just and proper to consider a series of two sale transactions immedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adri for Palwal. As the documents showed movement of goods from Bawal to Palwal, which was in contradiction with the statement of the driver, the vehicle was detained under Section 31 of the Act. In response to the show cause notice, Mr. Shelender Pathak, authorised representative of the appellant as well as for the consignee appeared and got the goods released against the surety bond. During penalty proceedings, reply was filed but no documents were produced inspite of having been written in the reply that the relevant documents were placed before the Penalising Officer. None appeared on the final date, vide ex-parte order dated 4.12.2015, penalty of ₹ 4,08,819/- under Section 31(8) of the Act was imposed and advance tax of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction which were bound to be in possession of the appellant. Secondly the goods were cleared from ICD, Dadri on 9.11.2015 and then sold by the consignor to the consignee on 10.11.2015, there was delay of six days in between the said sale and the date of checking. No explanation was put forth for the said delay. Lastly the stand taken was contradicted by the statement of the driver. The appellant in order to fortify the stand produced before the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal GR No. 2111 dated 9.11.2015 issued by M/s Nice Cargo Movers, New Delhi. From the GR, it rather established that the stand taken was after-thought. GR No. 2111 dated 9.11.2015 was for the earlier transaction whereas the goods were being accompanied by GR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
