9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited Anr. [ 2022 (1) TMI 954 - SC ORDER] is relevant. The same view has been taken by different High Courts. It is also noted that under Rule 138A of the CGST Act, 2017, the person in charge of the conveyance shall carry (a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan and (b) a copy of the e-way bill or the e-way bill number. In this case, the petitioner was carrying all the requisite documents as required in law at the time of carrying the goods. It is the case of the petitioner that the seller has already made payments towards his tax liability. Hence, there is no question of any evasion of tax liability. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that no specia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 conducted the physical verification of the said vehicle. During the physical verification, there was no mismatch in the quantity of the goods as mentioned in the document. The relevant portion of the said physical verification report reads as follows:- I hereby declare that the physical verification of the goods and conveyance mentioned above has been conducted in my presence and I accept that the contents recorded in this report are true and correct. 4. The only reason the respondent no. 2 had detained the goods is that the address of the consigner was not to be found during the inspection carried out at his place of business. Citing the said reasons, the respondent passed the impugned detention order dated 25.12.2023 imposing penalty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anr. decided on 12.01.2022 is relevant. The same view has been taken by different High Courts. It is also noted that under Rule 138A of the CGST Act, 2017, the person in charge of the conveyance shall carry (a) the invoice or bill of supply or delivery challan and (b) a copy of the e-way bill or the e-way bill number. In this case, the petitioner was carrying all the requisite documents as required in law at the time of carrying the goods. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the seller has already made payments towards his tax liability. Hence, there is no question of any evasion of tax liability. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. 10. In view of the settled position of law, this Court is of the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
