9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd if there were no intention to avoid the legitimate tax, the levy of penalty was not justified.
This Court in the case of M/S BANS STEEL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR ALPANA JAIN VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS [2024 (8) TMI 772 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that 'It is not in dispute that before the seizure order could be passed, proper E-way bill was produced and the authorities, at no stage, have pointed out any discrepancy in the said E-way bill. Once the E-way bill was produced before the seizure order could be passed, the discrepancy, if any, was cured.'
Petition allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mits that before the goods could be detained or the seizure order be passed, the e-way bill was produced before the respondent authority. He submits that the said fact is noticed in the penalty order dated 22.11.2022 and a copy of the same is being annexed as Annexure no. 11 at page 65. He further submits that penalty has been imposed without considering the material on record. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal in which it has specifically been pleaded that prior to passing of the seizure as well as detention order, the e-way bill was produced before the respondent authority but without giving due weightage to the same, the penalty order was affirmed by the appellate authority by the impugned order dated 9.8.2023. 4. In su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t treating that the same is an after thought. The record shows that none of the authorities at any stage have pointed out any defect in the e-way bill produced by the petitioner along with the reply to the show cause notice. The record further reveals that none of the authorities at any stage have recorded any finding against the petitioner in respect of intention to avoid the payment of tax. Once the petitioner in its reply has brought on record the e-way bill, before passing the seizure order, which is evident from the Annexure No. 11 at page 65 that the e-way bill was produced, but the same was not accepted treating same as after thought. 9. This Court on various occasions have held that if the requisite documents, which were not accomp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der could be passed, proper E-way bill was produced and the authorities, at no stage, have pointed out any discrepancy in the said E-way bill. Once the E-way bill was produced before the seizure order could be passed, the discrepancy, if any, was cured. In view of above, the aforesaid judgements relied upon by the learned ACSC have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as such, the same are of no aid to the respondents. 11. Further, in the case of M/s Akhilesh Traders (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the State, either at the time of interception of the goods or before passing the order, no documents were produced, therefore, the Court has justified the levy of penalty. 12. However in the present case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
