9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with all the required documents but a presumption was drawn that the earlier Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036 had brought the goods from Nagpur to Kanpur (UP) using the same e-way bill. There is no material on record to demonstrate that goods were brought twice by the petitioner. The petitioner had brought on record the e-way bill through annexure no. 2 to writ petition which demonstrates that cosigner has sent the goods through the transporter and e-way bill was generated on 10.10.2018 which clearly reflects that goods originated from Birur and the transporter changed the truck at Amrawati and thereafter at Nagpur - the argument raised by learned Standing Counsel cannot be accepted which is based on presumption and without any valid mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts 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 Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036 at 5:31 p.m. Thereafter, the goods were brought to Nagpur where the goods were transferred to Truck No. U.P.-78CN/4605 at 7:25 p.m. The goods which were in movement from Nagpur to the place of destination were intercepted on 22.10.2018 at Lakhanpur, Kanpur. The truck was detained. Thereafter, detention order was passed by the authorities. Subsequently, the proceedings were initiated for imposing penalty after issuance of notice which was replied by the owner of the goods. A penalty order was passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 which is against the provisions of Rule 48 of U.P. Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. He further contends that the duplicate copy must have been used in transporting the goods through vehicle No. U.P.-78DT/6036. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, I find that this is a case where the authorities had proceeded merely on presumption that goods which were being transported from Birur (Karnataka) to Kanpur (U.P.) were in fact brought by the petitioner from Nagpur into the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
