2022 (10) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tercepted and confiscated the same. The petitioner was directed to pay the tax as well as penalty - Thereafter it appears that a fresh e-Way Bill was generated immediately after interception. The description of the goods in the second e-Way Bill remains the same. It is only that the place of dispatch was rectified. The petitioner had to pay tax for the second time and penalty for not carrying the proper Way Bill at the very first instance. From the conduct of the petitioner it does not appear that there was an intention to evade tax. The respondent authorities ought not to collect tax for second time in respect of the self-same goods that were transported by the petitioner. Law doesn t require payment of tax to be made more than once in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ere the timber was actually dispatched. 4. The vehicle of the petitioner was intercepted and penalty was imposed on account of transporting timber without a valid Way Bill. The goods were confiscated and the petitioner had to pay penalty for the purpose of releasing the said goods upon payment of taxes as well as penalty. 5. A further e-Way Bill was generated on 8th January, 2021 at 5 PM wherein the dispatch address was mentioned as Barobhisha and the goods were transported to Raiganj. The description and quantity of the goods that was transported remains the same in both the e-Way Bills. 6. The petitioner prays for refund of the amount paid on account of taxes for the second time and the penalty amount, as according to the petitio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the document from where the goods were dispatched, the authorities intercepted and confiscated the same. The petitioner was directed to pay the tax as well as penalty. 11. Thereafter it appears that a fresh e-Way Bill was generated immediately after interception. The description of the goods in the second e-Way Bill remains the same. It is only that the place of dispatch was rectified. The petitioner had to pay tax for the second time and penalty for not carrying the proper Way Bill at the very first instance. 12. In Ashok Kumar Sureka (supra) the Court was of the opinion that as no case has been made out for willful and deliberate attempt to evade tax accordingly the petitioner was held to be entitled to get the refund of the pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X