Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (7) TMI 1153

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the vehicle has only produced tax invoice and e-way bill dated 11.07.2023 and 13.07.2023, but none of the documents as prescribed under the Act has been referred or even brought on record before this Court in support of the said contention. Once the documents accompanying the goods were found to be genuine the goods ought not be have been seized. The impugned order dated 06.03.2024 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed - petition allowed. - Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J. For the Petitioner : Vikas Singh, Raja Babu Gupta For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The instant peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e being transported was intercepted at Toll Plaza, Tundl, Firozabad, where all the documents available with the driver were shown to the authorities, but the authorities were not satisfied as according to them the goods were to be supplied at Auraiya and Etawah, while the said vehicle was intercepted at Firozabad which according to the authorities was not the route to be taken by the said vehicle and accordingly they were of the opinion that there is violation of Rule 129 of the SGST Rules, 2017 and accordingly, show cause notice was given to the petitioner asking him to explain as to why penalty may not be imposed for violation of GST Rules, 2017. 6. The petitioner had given his reply to the show cause notice. The Assistant Commissioner (M .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petitioner has relied upon the judgement of Gujrat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 19549 of 2021 (M/s Karnataka Traders Vs. State of Gujrat) decided on 6.1.2022 and Telengana High Court in W.P. No. 2869 of 2021, Vijay Metal Vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer , decided on 28.4.2021. He submits that in the present case there is no specific provision to declare the route which is to be taken for transporting the goods. He submits that in the earlier applicable VAT Act, there was a provision for declaring the route for transportation of the goods. He further submitted that in the absence of any specific provisions under the G.S.T. Act, no adverse inference can be drawn by the authorities without there being any cogent material on r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rout during transportation of goods to reach its final destination. Once the legislature itself in its wisdom has chosen to delete the said provision, this Court opined that the authorities were not correct in passing the seizure order even if the vehicle was not on regular route or on different route. 15. The power of detention as well as seizure can be exercised only when the goods were not accompanying with the genuine documents provided under the Act. The genuineness of the documents has not been disputed at any stage. 16. Observation/allegation has been made that at the time of interception / detention of the goods in question, the driver of the vehicle has only produced tax invoice and e-way bill dated 11.07.2023 and 13.07.2023, but n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cond ground with regard to the goods being transported to be undervalue is concerned, no material has been placed on record. Even otherwise, as held by this Court as well as other High Courts, it is a settled legal position that undervaluation cannot be a ground for seizure of goods in transit by the inspecting authority. In the instant case, there is no such indication. 18. Telangana High Court in the case of Vijay Metal (supra) has held as under :- 19. We do not appreciate the stand taken by the 1st respondent for the reason that the quantity consigned to the petitioner at Hyderabad was admittedly 14.30 tonnes and the quantity which was consigned to M/s. Simi Steels, Adoni was only 2.01 tonnes. Naturally for operational convenience the tr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates