9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the State of Telangana in Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and the goods were being transported to that address from its Corporate office at Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State, it cannot be said that the petitioner was indulging in any illegal activity when the tax invoice shows that the supplier is the petitioner s Corporate office in Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State and that it was shipped to its Depot in Bongulur village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. There was no occasion for the 3rd respondent to collect tax and penalty from the petitioner on the pretext that there is illegality in the transport of goods as it would merely amount to stock transfer and there is no element of sale of goods or services in it. Respondents are directed to refund wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is also mismatch between e.way bill and goods in movement. He also endorsed in the order of detention that the goods were being transported from Ranipet, Tamil Nadu to Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Hyderabad, but as per e.way bill, the goods have to be transported from Ranipet, State of Tamil Nadu to Hayathnagar in the State of Telangana and so there is mismatch with the invoice and e.way bill. 5. The 3rd respondent then issued a show cause notice dt.05.03.2000 under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act,2017 and TSGST Act,2017 calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days why the proposed tax and penalty should not be payable. The tax proposed was ₹ 1,67,612/- towards CGST and equal amount towards St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not reflected in the invoice or the e.way bill. He contended that when he issued show cause notice, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of responding to the show cause notice, and immediately paid the entire assessment and penalty without any objection and so the Writ Petition ought not to have entertained and it is an abuse of process of Court. He alleged that unlike VAT regime Branch transfer is taxable under the GST Regime, though he did not quote any provision of law in respect of the said plea. 11. A reading of the counter-affidavit indicates that 3rd respondent does not dispute that petitioner s registration certificate in the State of Telangana itself would disclose that its principal place of business is Hayathnag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is illegality in the transport of goods as it would merely amount to stock transfer and there is no element of sale of goods or services in it. 16. In any event, now that 3rd respondent is made aware that petitioner has the principal Office at Tamil Nadu and principal place of business at Hayatnagar and additional place of business at Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, the tax and penalty collected from the petitioner cannot be allowed to be retained by respondents. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; and respondents are directed to refund within four (04) weeks the sum of ₹ 6,70,448/- collected towards CGST and State GST and penalty from the petitioner with interest @ 9% p.a. from 05-03-2020 till date of pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
