9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e vehicle bearing No.MH-40-CM-9089 along with the goods which have been retained by respondent No. 1-authority under the impugned order within a period of seven days thereafter. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ For the Petitioners (By Sri. Sanddep Huligol And Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocates) For the Respondents (By Sri. Madhav Rao., AAG A/W Smt. Maya T.R., HCGP). ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Quashing the impugned order dated 25.07.2024 in Form GST MOV-06 passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 129 (1) of the Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the business of trading in arecanut sourced from agriculturalists and growers. The petitioner, after sourcing the said arecanut, supplies the same to its customers on which the petitioner has been making payment of the necessary taxes, including GST. 3. One M/s. Aryan Traders, Delhi had sought for supply of arecanut by the petitioner in furtherance of which a purchase order is said to have been issued on 10.07.2024 as regards which petitioner No. 1 raised the invoice on 13.07.2024 for supply of 24,500 kg. of arecanut (Rs. 104/- per kilo gram) and these arecanut was handed over to M/s. Lion Transport for delivery to the consignee/purchaser at Delhi. The goods under transit during transport was intercepted by respondent No. 2-Sub-Inspector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t more as done in the impugned order. In that background, he submits that the petitioner is willing to, without prejudice to his rights, make payment of penalty to the extent of twice the tax on the goods if the goods are released in favour of the petitioners. 5. Sri. Malhar Rao, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the valuation of the goods which have been made under the invoice is less than the market value, and it is in that background that the show cause notice also takes note of the under valuation of the goods and as such, he submits that if at all, the petitioners would have to make payment of penalty at twice the tax leviable on the market value of the goods as determined by the authorities. 6. Sri. Sandeep Huilgol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
