9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty order dated 02.11.2018 passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called as "GST Act, 2017") and the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)- I, State Goods and Service Tax, Kanpur. 3. The case is brief, is that the petitioner who is the consignee of the goods was bringing the goods through the transporter from State of Karnataka to the State of U.P. The goods were carried by the transporter from Birur, Karnataka after the required documents were handed over and e-way bill which was generated on 10.10.2018 at 8:38 p.m. The goods were carried through Truck No. MH-40BG/6078. The goods reached Amrawati on 17.10.2018 and it was shifted to another truck being T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought uptil Nagpur by Truck No. U.P.- 78DT/6036 was in fact carried upto Kanpur and it was the second transaction done by the petitioner bringing in the goods from Nagpur to the State of U.P. through Truck No. U.P.-78CN/4605. He then contended that during the examination of the documents of Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036, it has been found that e-way bill which was carried by that truck was e-way bill No. 141063074371, while the goods which were detained from Truck No. U.P.- 78CN/4605 carried e-way bill No. 161073493422. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has invited the attention of the Court to para 8 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that transporter at the time of detaining of the truck had produced the original copy of invoice wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N/4605 accompanying e-way bill no. 161073493422, the presumption drawn by both the authorities cannot be accepted without there being any material on record that earlier the petitioner had brought the goods from Nagpur through Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036. 9. Further, I find that the argument raised by learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted which is based on presumption and without any valid material on record. From perusal of the order impugned, I find that the proceedings has been initiated solely on the basis of presumption that goods having been brought into the State using two different vehicles by same e-way bill. Once, it was found that the vehicle was carrying the required documents along with the e-way bill, no question arose for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
