9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly mentioning that due to technical glitch in the GST portal, the same could not be generated. The said fact has not been disputed by any of the authorities. Even before this Court, the said ground has been taken, but the same has not been specifically denied. Further, the record shows that none of the authorities below have recorded any finding that the petitioner has intention to evade payment of tax. This Court in Shyam Sel & Power Limited [2023 (10) TMI 218 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Galaxy Enterprises [2023 (11) TMI 359 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has specifically held that in case any deficiency is pointed out in the show cause notice and the same is cured before passing of the detention order, no penalty can be justified. Conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported through Truck No. UP 20 AT - 9997. Along with the goods, e-way bill, bilty, etc. were also accompanying. The goods were onward journey from Bijnor (UP) to Punjab accompanying with tax invoice, e-way bills, transporter bilty, etc., but the vehicle no. UP 20 AT - 9997 carrying the goods was intercepted at Devband, Saharanpur. On physical inspection, the respondent no. 2 found no discrepancy in the goods, but the goods were detained only on the ground that the e-tax invoice was not accompanying the goods and proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act were initiated. On payment of tax and penalty, the goods and the vehicle were released. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2, being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, passed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Shyam Sel & Power Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others [(2023) 11 Centax 99 (All.)] and Galaxy Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. & Others [(2023) 12 Centax 137 (All.)]. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the goods in question were accompanying with tax invoice, e-way bill, bilty, etc., in which no adverse inference regarding the description of goods and the quantity of goods was ever drawn at any stage. The only ground for seizure of the goods and penalty was that the e-tax invoice was not accompanying the goods in question. The p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
