9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been mentioned as UP-14BT/3276. As there is no dispute to the fact that it is a case of stock transfer and there is no intention on the part of dealer to evade any tax, the minor discrepancy as to the registration of vehicle in State in the e-way bill would not attract proceedings for penalty u/s 129 and the order passed by the detaining authority as well as first appellate authority cannot be sustained. Moreover, the Department has not placed before the Court any other material so as to bring on record that there was any intention on the part of the dealer to evade tax except the wrong mention of part of registration number of the vehicle in the e-way bill. The number of vehicle through which the goods were transported was manually correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, a penalty order under Section 129(3) of the Act of 2017 was passed imposing a tax of Rs. 57,848/- and penalty of the same amount, totaling Rs. 1,15,696. Against the said order, an appeal under Section 107 of the Act was preferred by the dealer before the Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal) Commercial Tax, Saharanpur. The appeal was dismissed vide order impugned dated August 5, 2019. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of stock transfer by the dealer from its unit at Saharanpur to sale depot at Ghaziabad. The goods which were in transit were accompanied by necessary documents and the e-way bill. The only mistake on the part of the person in-charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parties and perused the material on record. 6. The sole controversy engaging the attention of the Court is as to whether the wrong mention of number of Vehicle No.UP-11T/2175 through which the goods were in transit and detained by the taxing authorities would be considered as a human error and will be covered under the circular No.41/15/2018-GST dated 13.04.2018 and 49/23/2018-GST dated 21.06.2018, as the number mentioned in the e-way bill was UP-14BT/3276 and the mistake is of only of 14BT/3276 in place of 11T/2175. 7. It is not in dispute that goods were being transported by the dealer through stock transfer from its unit at Saharanpur to its sale depot at Ghaziabad. From perusal of the e-way bill which has been brought on record, it is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
