9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that on physical verification, mustard oil was found. Surprisingly, no samples were drawn or any test report was obtained for taking a different view. The authorities cannot be said to be expert for treating the goods differently as declared without any basis. The seizing authority, if was of the opinion that the goods in question were not R.B. Oil as declared in the accompanying documents, it ought to have drawn sample and got an expert report. Without expert report, the authority ought not to have seized the goods. Once the authorities have not observed that there was an intention to evade payment of tax, the proceedings initiated under section 129(3) of the GST Act ought not to have been initiated against the petitioner. On this ground a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 as well as the summary of order issued under section 129(3) of the GST Act dated 14.06.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of edible oils. He further submits that in the normal course of its business, the petitioner received order for supply of R.B. Oil from one M/s Shiv Shakti Enterprises, Bihar, which is also a registered firm. On 11.06.2023, the petitioner issued e-tax invoice and generated e-way bill. Thereafter, the goods were dispatched through vehicle No. UP 75 AT 7951 from Gwalior (MP) to Bihar and to reach Bihar, the vehicle in question has to pass through the State of U.P. He further submits that on 12.06.2023, the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MOV 07 or MOV 09. He further submits that DRC 07 cannot be put to service without issuing order in MOV 09 and therefore, the proceedings are bad. 5. He further submits that both the dealers, i.e., the seller and purchaser, are registered dealers and the genuineness of the documents accompanied the goods and the vehicle have not been doubted by the respondents authorities at any stage. He further submits that the respondent no. 2 without having any jurisdiction has proceeded against the petitioner as the respondent no. 2 had no prior adverse information against the petitioner. He further submits that since the goods were passing through the State of U.P., no loss of revenue is involved for the State of U.P. 6. He further submits that no lab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assing through the State of U.P. The same were intercepted at Auraiya on the ground of different goods being transported other than mentioned in the accompanying documents. The documents are stated to be for R.B. Oil and the allegation has been made that on physical verification, mustard oil was found. Surprisingly, no samples were drawn or any test report was obtained for taking a different view. The authorities cannot be said to be expert for treating the goods differently as declared without any basis. The seizing authority, if was of the opinion that the goods in question were not R.B. Oil as declared in the accompanying documents, it ought to have drawn sample and got an expert report. Without expert report, the authority ought not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
