9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 129(3) and also quashing has been sought for the demand of tax and penalty of Rs. 90,62,400/- as well as appellate order dated 18.08.2022. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered dealer under State Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 2017"). He has sold 400 bags of Arecanut vide tax invoice dated 09.06.2022 to M/s. Jagdamba Enterprises, Nagpur which is also said to be a registered dealer in his respective State. The said Arecanut was being transported from Delhi to Nagpur, Maharastra by M/s. Ravi Goods Transport. The goods were intercepted at Mathura at 4:28 a.m. on 10.06.2022. The goods while in transit were not carrying the e-way bill. The e-way bill was generated on 10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the e-way bill was not present at the place of detention and the driver of the vehicle had moved out without intimation to the petitioner. As soon as the driver realised the mistake and informed the petitioner about the non availability of the e-way bill, the same was downloaded without delay and produced before the authorities. Reliance has been placed upon the decision in case of M/s. Modern Traders vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2018 NTN 187 and decision of co-ordinate Bench in case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and 3 others, 2018 NTN 245. Reliance has also been placed upon decisions rendered in Raj Iron and Building Materials vs. Union of India, 2018 UPTC 217, M/s. Falguni Steels vs. State of U.P. and others ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued reflects North West Delhi, PIN Code 110041 while PIN Code of Bakauli is 110036. These evidences show that registration is being misused to hide the original source of transportation and clearance of goods. On the basis of GSTIN, deficiencies found in checking of seller firm, M/s. Gurunanak Arecanut Traders, Delhi (petitioner), a letter was sent to Assistant Commissioner, SGST, Zone-5, Ward-62, Delhi for investigation of the firm. An inquiry report dated 14.06.2022 was sent, in which place of business of firm was not found to be traceable and process for suo moto cancellation has been marked against the firm. 8. According to learned Standing Counsel, this clearly proves the evasion of tax due to mismatch between unidentified goods o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of co-ordinate Bench in case of M/s. Jhansi Enterprises, Nandanpura, Jhansi vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Tax No. 1081 of 2019, decided on 01.03.2024 and decision rendered in case of M/s. Akhilesh Traders vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Tax No. 1109 of 2019, decided on 20.02.2024. 10. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. The sole question for consideration is whether carrying e-way bill is mandatory for the movement of goods from one place to another. The question is no more res integra after the 14th Amendment of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 which came into effect from 01.04.2018. Post amendment in the Rule, it has become obligatory that goods should be acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (supra), the co-ordinate Bench following the decision rendered in Akhilesh Traders (supra) further held that mere furnishing of documents subsequent to interception cannot be a valid ground to show that there was no intention to evade tax. The Court further held that reliance placed upon the decision by petitioner therein was of transaction prior to April, 2018 but after April, 2018, those difficulties have been resolved and there is no difficulty in generating and downloading the e-way bill. The Court held as under:- "11. Mere furnishing of the documents subsequent to the interception can not be a valid ground to show that there was no intention to evade tax. There must be some reasonable grounds to justify the nonproduction of documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before order dated 24.06.2022 was passed is totally against the material on record which not only reveals that notice was served upon the driver but it was also sent through e-mail to both the seller and buyer on 16.06.2022 which remained unattended. Once finding has been recorded by authorities and petitioner firm never participated in the proceedings before the authorities, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 15. Moreover, conduct of the petitioner clearly reveals that an intention to evade the tax is there as not only the goods in transit were not accompanied by e-way bill but also the description of goods declared by petitioner was different which was intercepted by the taxing authorities on 10.06.2022. Goods declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
