9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for non-disclosure of Kundan stones in the Delivery Challan, all other requirements of Rule 55 of the CGST Rules have been complied with by the petitioner as can be seen from the Delivery Challan itself. A perusal of the impugned order will also indicate that both authorities have committed an error in proceeding on the erroneous presumption / assumption that the gold was not being sent for sample purpose but was being transported for the purpose of sale and since the names of the prospective purchaser were not mentioned in the Delivery Challan, petitioner would be liable to pay penalty as directed in the impugned order. However, the said reasoning of the Authorities and findings recorded by it is clearly contrary to the material on recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued in GST MOV-02, pursuant to which proceedings under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, CGST Act ) having been initiated, the same culminated in the order at Annexure H dated 15.07.2022, in pursuance of the same, petitioner paid penalty of Rs. 14,50,560/- and filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 15.12.2022. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the respondents, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the Delivery Challan at Annexure B as well a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of Rule 55 of the CGST Rules have been complied with by the petitioner as can be seen from the Delivery Challan itself. Despite this, both the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority have wrongly / erroneously invoked Rule 55 of the CGST Rules in order to come to the conclusion that there was mismatch between the Delivery Challan and the actual goods without appreciating that mere non-disclosure / non-mentioning of the Kundan stones in relation to the subject gold ornaments, which were being transported only for sample purpose could not have been made the basis to come to the conclusion that the petitioner would be liable to pay penalty of Rs. 14,50,560/-. 7. A perusal of the impugned order will also indicate that both authoriti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
