9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e problem arising in filling the part-B of e-way bill was noticed and advisories were issued. In the present case, prima-facie no intent to evade the duty can be ascertained, only on the allegation that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled, more so, in view of the fact that the vehicle in which the goods were being transported on a Delhi number. The writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to refund the amount collected and paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order within a period of two months from today. - WRIT - C No. - 22285 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2022 - Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. For the Petitioner : Amit Harsh,Prabhat Kumar For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... izure of the goods. He argues that this issue was addressed by the department itself while issuing the Clarificatory Circular, as contained in Annexure no.13, where the technical glitch arising out of the number plates bearing Delhi Number was recorded and it was advised that while filling the form, it should be filled in a particular manner as the form which accepts the e-way bill does not have any provision for zero to be mentioned. The said clarification dated 18.03.2018 is on record as Annexure no.13. In the light of the said, the counsel for the petitioner argues that the error in not filling the form in part B of the e-way bill was on account of the technical glitch which itself was realized by the department who had issued the Cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposing penalty as well as the demanding tax is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. The Standing Counsel on the other hand defends the impugned order and places reliance on the averments made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit to the effect that the stand taken by the department that the Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled on technical glitch, merits rejection. In view of the contentions of the parties and the material placed on record, it is clear that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner leading to seizure of the goods was that Part-B of the eway bill was not filled up. There is no allegation that the goods being transported were being transported without payment of tax. The explanation offered by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
