9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lid 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. In the instant case, it is an admitted case that the goods were intercepted by respondent no. 2 on 10.06.2022 at 4:28 a.m., while the eway bill was generated on the same day at 7:36 a.m. after about three hours after the detention of the goods. Moreover, on the inquiry it was found that the petitioner was not carrying out the business at the place where the firm was registered. The registration of the firm was also suo moto cancelled - the 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 were taxable @5% while the goods found on verification were taxable @18%. Conclusion - The e-way bill was generated after the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r before Additional Commissioner, Grade-II (Appeal), Aligarh which was rejected by order impugned dated 18.08.2022. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order dated 16.06.2022 as well as penalty order dated 24.06.2022 have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that first appellate authority has not applied its mind while rejecting the appeal and a non-speaking order has been passed. According to her, the person who had downloaded 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 Mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, no business activity was found at the seller's shown trading place. Further, verification of goods revealed that chopped smooth roasted betel nut (processed) were loaded while they have been declared as Arecanut-201 goods, while on physical verification goods fall under the category of Betel Nut (HSN Code 21069030) which are taxable @18%, whereas tax was charged @5%. It was further contended that buyer firm M/s. Jagdamba Enterprises, Nagpur, Maharastra was only registered on 05.01.2022 and has purchased goods from only one firm M/s. Harsh International, Delhi. According to him, the facts reveal that transaction in question was being done with an intention to evade tax by organised group which is in violation of Section 68 read with Rule 138 and 138A of the Act of 2017 and it attracts the provision of Section 20 of IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 129 of UGST/CGST Act. Moreover, the notice was provided on 16.06.2022 to driver of the vehicle and was also sent through e-mail to consignee and consignor on 16.06.2022 but no clarification was received from anyone on their behalf. 9. It was lastly contended that the judgment relied upon by petitioner relate to the period where the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its pocket with respect to the GST payable on the said goods." 12. In Jhansi Enterprises (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 documents at the proper time. 12. Furthermore, the judgments upon which the petitioner is relying are prior to April 2018, when there were actually some difficulties with the generation of e-way bill. But after April, 2018 those difficulties have been resolved and now there is no difficulty in generating and downloading the e-way bill. 13. The argument raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
