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 (9) TMI 1010

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... account. This fact has not been denied at any stage. Merely because that the E-way bill was issued by the Ghaziabad dealer on the purchase made by the petitioner, this will not make that the goods was purchased from non bonafied dealer. The State respondent has failed to bring on record any material to show that the goods were purchased from non bona fied dealer. The movement of the goods in question is shown by the petitioner of which tax invoice and E-way bill was issued in which in the place of dispatch, it was specifically mentioned as Ghaziabad. The GR has also been issued. The record further reveals that no discrepancy whatsoever with regard to quality, quantity or specification i.e. MS scrap, was found otherwise. In the present case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rolling Mills based in the northern India. She submits that in the normal course of business, the petitioner sold MS scrape to M/s Himgiri Ispat Pvt. Ltd., 39, 40 Asodpur Industrial Area, Kotdwar, Uttarakhand in lorry No. UP 20 AT 5786. The said goods was accompanying with proper documents i.e. tax invoice no. 0183 dated 16.11.2021 as well as E-way Bill no. 7112 2331 1139 dated 16.11.2021 of the consignor dealer M/s Samira Enterprises Delhi. The goods were with G.R. No. 810 dated 16.11.2021 issued by M/s Supreme Roadlines, Ghaziabad 201001, UP. She submits that the goods, during its onward journey was intercepted on 17.11.2021 at Muzaffarnagar, UP by the respondent no. 3 and thereafter GST MOV- 1 and 2 was issued and the goods were detained .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order has been passed. 6. She further submits that Circular no. 64/38/2018-GST dated 14.9.2018 contemplates that the goods can be detained only if tax invoice or any other specified document and the E-way Bill is not accompanying with the goods then the proceedings under Section 129 may be initiated, however in the present case, all the required documents, as prescribed under the Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder, are accompanying with the goods in question, still the proceedings has illegally been initiated. 7. In support of his submission, she relied upon the judgement of of this Court in the case of Riya Traders Vs. State of UP (Writ Tax No. 28 of 2023) Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:13179-DB , M/s Margo Brush India and others V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om Ghaziabad dealer and therefore due entries has been made in its purchase account. This fact has not been denied at any stage. Merely because that the E-way bill was issued by the Ghaziabad dealer on the purchase made by the petitioner, this will not make that the goods was purchased from non bonafied dealer. 11. The State respondent has failed to bring on record any material to show that the goods were purchased from non bona fied dealer. The movement of the goods in question is shown by the petitioner of which tax invoice and E-way bill was issued in which in the place of dispatch, it was specifically mentioned as Ghaziabad. The GR has also been issued. The record further reveals that no discrepancy whatsoever with regard to quality, qu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... argument has been raised that the orders have been passed against the petitioner under Section 129 (1) (b) instead of Section 129 (1)(a) of the Act. 17. In the present case, the petitioner was present before the respondent authority, therefore, the proceedings ought not to be initiated under Section 129 (1) (b) of the Act. 18. This Court in the case of M/s Margo Brush India and others (supra) has held as under: 6. In view of the aforesaid fact and also the clarification given by the Board vide its Circular dated 31, 2018, in our opinion, levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act was not called for and could not be justified as Section 129(1)(a) of the Act provides that where owner of the goods comes forward for payment of penalty, .....

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