9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1036X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any tax, the minor discrepancy as to the registration of vehicle in State in the e-way bill would not attract proceedings for penalty under Section 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 orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law and both the orders are hereby set aside - Petition allowed. - Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE SHEK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of sale of goods by the dealer from its unit at Agra to M/s Rawat sales in Mathura. 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 who had downloaded the e-way bill was wrong entry of the Vehicle No. UP 80 CT 7024 in place of UP 83 CT 2724. Except this fact the goods were being transported along with all the necessary documents. According to learned counsel, there was no intention to evade the tax on behalf of dealer and reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Court in case of Assistant Commissioner (ST) and others vs. M/s. Satyam Shivam Papers Pvt. Ltd. and another, 2022 UPTC (110) 269 . The said judgment has been relied upon by D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of 83 CT 2724. 8. It is not in dispute that goods were being transported by the dealer through stock transfer from its unit at Agra to M/s Rawat sales in Mathura. From perusal of the e-way bill which has been brought on record, it is clear that the vehicle number has been mentioned as UP 80 CT 7024. 9. As there is no dispute to the fact that it is a case of sale of goods 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 under Section 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
