9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner could have evaded tax. Petition allowed. - Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. For the Petitioner : Abhijeet Kumar Srivastav For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Shri Aditya Pande, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 3.11.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), Nyayik Sambhag (Legal Division)- Fourth, Commercial Tax, Lucknow thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirming the order of the adjudicating authorities dated 09.08.2018 thereby in exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.08.2018 instead of 31.07.2018. It was further stated that the transaction was stock transfer from Patna Branch to Lucknow Branch and the said transaction was not liable to tax under the U.P. GST Act and consequently prayed for release of the goods. 4. The Adjudicating Officer rejected the contention raised by the petitioner and merely on the account that there was mismatch in the e-way bill and the branch transfer invoice imposed penalty and tax on the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a registered dealer and adhering to the provisions of GST in its letter and spirit. It is stated that in the normal course of business, the petitioner made a stock transfer from its Patna Branch t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 9. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the goods were being transported from Patna branch to Lucknow branch and the said goods were accompanying with all the relevant documents. The only discrepancy, which was noticed by the mobile squad, who intercepted the goods, was with regard to the date occurring in the e-way bill as well as branch transfer invoice. In the e-way bill the date occurring was 2.8.2018 while in the branch transfer invoice the date was 31.07.2018. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the e-way bill the date indicated was 2.8.2018 because it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
