9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 items for which only the e-way bills are required during transport and other items were exempted from accompanying the e-way bill. The respondent authorities have accepted that the goods were originating from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and to be terminated at Panna, Madhya Pradesh. On perusal of the impugned order it is also found that it is categorically mentioned that the origination as well as termination of the goods in question was in State of Madhya Pradesh meaning thereby the authorities are of the view that the goods were not to be unloaded in the State of UP or any intention to avoid tax. However, mainly on the ground of some small technical fault for not carrying the e-way bill, the penalty ought not to have been levied in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. MaxX waterproof Putty and five invoices were also issued. The said goods were transported from Gwalior to Panna, Madhya Pradesh by which two G.R. number i.e. 612 and 611 were also issued in which vehicle number was also mentioned as MP 20 HB4370. The goods on its onward journey from Gwalior to Panna, Madhya Pradesh passes through the State of UP where the said goods were intercepted during transit on the ground that e-way bill was not accompanying the goods. On the said basis, the impugned order was passed under Section 129 (3) of the Act by which the penalty of Rs. 175236/- was imposed under G.S.T. Act, against which the first appeal was preferred, which was also dismissed. Hence the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e prays for allowing the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Mr. Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and submitted that the goods in question was not carrying e-way bill which was required to be carried while the goods were in transport. He further submitted that the Notification dated 24.4.2018 is of no help to the petitioner as its reference to the State of Madhya Pradesh and not of State of U.P. He prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 8. The Court has perused the records. 9. Admittedly, the goods were originated from Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh and its destination was Panna, Madhya Pradesh. It is also admitted by all the authorities below that during transportation of the goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... meaning thereby the authorities are of the view that the goods were not to be unloaded in the State of UP or any intention to avoid tax. However, mainly on the ground of some small technical fault for not carrying the e-way bill, the penalty ought not to have been levied in the absence of any discrepancy in document accompanying the goods. In view of above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 12. In the results, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned orders are set aside. Any amount already deposited by the petitioner during pendency of the present litigation, shall be refunded to him within a period of 20 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
