9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransferee was mentioned as Ghaziabad whereas in tax invoice, it was mentioned as Kanpur. In the case in hand, petitioner is both i.e. the consignor and consignee as the goods in question is a stock transfer from State of Orrisa to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been treated as the owner of the goods. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Arviva Industries (I) Ltd. [ 2007 (1) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT ] has specifically held that the circulars are binding upon the authorities, it is not a case of the respondents that the Circular dated 31.12.2018 has been rescinded or superseded. In view of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of M/s Riya Traders [ 2023 (1) TMI 1238 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] wherein it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Compressor, Fans and Ventilators. The petitioner is having multi-registration as it is actively involved in different states and in the State of UP., the company is registered at Ghaziabad. 4. He submits that the stock transfer was made from its Orissa branch to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh by the petitioner ( the consignor of the goods). The goods were in transit through Truck No. DL1LAJ3127 which was supported by E-Invoices and a valid E-way Bill. The goods in transit were intercepted on 28.10.2024 by the respondent no.3 and GST MOV-01 was issued in the name of the driver at Kanpur and the order of physical verification of the goods were issued on 29.10.2024 in Form GST MOV- 02. Admittedly, I.D. of the driver was created and on physical verif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ex Court passed in the case of Union of India Vs. Arviva Industries (I) Ltd., [2008] 12 STT 28 (SC), decided on 10.01.2007. 10. He further submits that a specific pleadings with regard to Circular dated 31.12.2018 has been made in para no.19 of the present writ petition, but the same has not been denied in paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit. 11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order. He further submits that in the e-way bill, place of delivery of goods was shown as Ghaziabad, but the goods were being transported to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. 12. After hearing the parties, the Court has perused the records. 13. Admittedly, the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any other specified document is not accompanying the cosignment of goods, then in such cases, the proper officer should determine who should be declared as the owner of the goods. 17. Further, the specific pleadings have been raised in para no.19 of the present writ petition, which has not been denied in corresponding paragraph no.15 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 18. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Arviva Industries (I) Ltd . has specifically held that the circulars are binding upon the authorities, it is not a case of the respondents that the Circular dated 31.12.2018 has been rescinded or superseded. 19. In view of the judgment of this Court passed in the case of M/s Riya Traders (supra) wherein it has specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
