9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner. 3. It may be mentioned that petitioner-company is registered with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) authorities in the State of Telangana. It was transporting a pharma drug called 'pregabalin' in bulk quantity from one of their units in Medchal to another unit in Nalgonda District by way of stock transfer under e-way bill dated 25.11.2020. The vehicle carrying the pharma drug was intercepted by Respondent No.2- Deputy State Tax Officer, Jeedimetla Circle (Proper Officer) on 25.11.2020 at 11.45 a.m. There was mismatch between the registration number of the vehicle and the vehicle number mentioned in the e-way bill. Statement of the driver was found to be not satisfactory. Thereafter, the vehicle was detained. Subsequently, Proper Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngle digit matches between the two numbers. One is 1724 and another is 8391. If it was a clerical mistake, the mistake would be in one or two digits but not in all four digits. Obviously, there was something more to it than meets the eye. It should be noted at this juncture that regulatory provisions of taxation acts are meant to prevent evasion of tax. The columns relating to vehicle number in e-way bill cannot be taken lightly or brushed aside as of no consequence. Gross mismatches in vehicle numbers are indicative of evasion or avoidance of tax. There could be situations where the same way bill with same vehicle number may be used to transport multiple consignments in different vehicles without paying tax. It is for the tax payer to come ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be noted that the said case related to filling up of Part-B of e-way bill and not mismatch of vehicle numbers. Hence it cannot be applied here. In view of the detailed discussion made here above, I find no substance in the contentions of the Appellant Company against levy of tax and equal amount of penalty under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act and hereby dismiss the Appeal upholding the order passed by the proper officer." 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on stock transfer, there can be no levy of GST and such a view has been taken by this Court in SAME DEUTZFHR INDIA P. LTD. V. STATE OF TELANGANA 2020 (43) G.S.T.L. 673 (Telangana). 9. In SAME DEUTZFHR INDIA P. LTD. V. STATE OF TELANGANA (1 supra), it has been held as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice in Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State and that it was shipped to its Depot in Bongulur village in Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. 15. 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. 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 Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
