9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther prayer has been made to quash the detention order dated 07.1.2023 on GST MOV-06. 3. At the outset, Sri Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner has confined the prayer in the writ petition to release of the goods and vehicle in accordance with provisions of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. Prayer to quash the entire proceedings has not been pressed at this stage. 4. Briefly, petitioner claims to be a registered trader in iron scrap. It further claims to have dispatched certain goods to M/s Harshika Steel Sales against its regular tax invoice and E-way bill dated 02.1.2023, on truck bearing registration No. PB11- CQ-2981. Goods are thus claimed to have dispatched from Kanpur to Ludhiana in State of Punjab. 5. During the course of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transaction with respect to the place of origin and destination. Then, reference has been made to the fact that registration of the petitioner was suspended on 05.1.2023. Also, reference has been made to panchnama document whereunder allegedly the proprietor of the petitioner firm denied knowledge about the transaction. 8. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, while the revenue seeks to raise disputes based on its ex parte enquiries and other circumstance, upon query made, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that at present the revenue has not formed any opinion to falsify the genuineness of the tax invoice and the E-way bill claimed by the petitioner. It also does not dispute that those documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipt of copy of the order." 10. Again in M/s Riya Traders (supra), it has been observed as under:- " 4. Once the documents clearly establish the name of the consignor, who is a registered dealer in the State, the proceedings should have been initiated against the owner of the firm instead of the driver, so as to enable him to respond to the notice. In any case, once from the facts on record, which have gone undisputed, the petitioner, who is consignor in the invoice and e-Way Bill, claims himself to be the owner of the goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act could not be invoked for imposing penalty. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated December 15, 2022 passed by the respondent no. 2, is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
