9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails Annexure P/6 by which the State Tax Officer invoking its power u/S 68 read with Section 129 of the Central GST Act, has levied tax as well as penalty on the ground of the petitioner's transporter on being intercepted was found to carry GST paid goods to petitioner's office at Jabalpur whereas e-way bill generated showed destination at Indore. Further challenge is to the appellate order Annexure P/7 by which the appeal of petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also on final disposal. 3. The sole ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the challenge to the aforesaid two orders Annexure P/6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or in the pin-code but the address of the consignor and the consignee mentioned is correct, subject to the condition that the error in the PIN code should not have the effect of increasing the validity period of the e-way bill. c) Error in the address of the consignee to the extent that the locality and other details of the consignee are correct; d) Error in one or two digits of the document number mentioned in the e-way bill; e) Error in 4 or 6 digit level of HSN where the first 2 digits of HSN are correct and the rate or tax mentioned is correct; f) Error in one or two digits/characters of the vehicle number." 5. Relying upon the Clause 5 of the aforesaid circular dated 14.09.2018, learned counsel for the Revenue Shri Piyush Dhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evade tax. 7. It does not appear that either the Taxing Authority or the appellate authority has undertaken the said exercise of conducting an inquiry to ascertain the real intent behind the act of petitioner to mention wrong address. 8. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Robbins Tunnelling and Trenchless Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and another decision of this Court rendered on 16.03.2022 in WP No.344/2022 (M/s Create Consults vs. State of MP and others) and dated 30.03.2022 in WP No.6118/2002 (Technosteel Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of MP and others) do not assist the petitioner as they are distinguishable in as much as the facts i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
