9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of issue of such invoices. Thus, all tax invoices produced by the petitioner to cover the disputed goods are dated 31.07.2021. No enquiry appears to have been made from the revenue authorities in the State of Punjab to confirm if the transactions were genuine. Then, it is not the case of the revenue that the goods found transported were different from the goods disclosed in the tax invoices produced by the petitioner. No enquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities either from the purchasing dealers or the Assessing Authority to doubt the transaction at the end of the consignee. In view of the lack of enquiry and lack of reasonable doubt, the continued seizure and confiscation as also the demand of tax and penalty is base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the IGST Act) read with Section 20 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act) and Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the UP GST Act). 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, the petitioner claims to be the owner of the goods. It further claims to have sold the goods from Ludhiana in the State of Punjab to three dealers at Gwalior - Navkar Fashions, Afzal Alam Khan and Jayendra Singh Jadon. The value of the goods sold to each of the dealers was below ₹ 50,000/- i.e. below the threshold limit prescribed for issuance of E-way bills. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of absence of such documents at the stage of interception of the goods and physical verification, it has been assumed, the goods were being imported into the State of U.P. in contravention of law. Accordingly, tax and penalty had been demanded and confiscation made. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the documents that were produced by the petitioner though at the stage of the show cause notice were original tax invoices issued by the petitioner. No enquiry was made to doubt the genuineness of such tax invoices or to doubt the date of issue of such invoices. Thus, all tax invoices produced by the petitioner to cover the disputed goods are dated 31.07.2021. No enquiry appears to have been made from the revenue authorities in the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
