9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s leading case. 3. By means of Writ Tax No. 1384 of 2022, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 in GST Appeal No. 31/2021 (A.Y. 2019- 20) and the penalty order dated 20.3.2020 passed by respondent no. 2 in GST MOV 09. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is registered construction and developers company having its head office at Jodhpur Rajasthan and having GSTIN 08AFEPT3780M1ZS. The petitioner has made transfer of one old Compactor Machine vide delivery challan no. 2 dated 17.3.2020 for the purpose of its own use at its branch location at Auraiya (UP) for completion of a work order (earth work) secured by the petitioner for development of Bundelkhand Expressway IV fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that same were being transported without having necessary documents, however before the seizure as well as penalty order could be passed, all the required documents were produced. The records shows that the compactor machine was transported from head office at Rajasthan to work place at Uttar Pradesh for completion of work. The delivery challan and e-way bill were not produced at the time of interception but along with the notice, the same were produced in which no other discrepancy was pointed out. The delivery challan itself shows that goods were transferred from head office Rajasthan to its work place at Uttar Pradesh. Further there is no element of sale involved in the present transaction hence no tax evasion can be attributed. 10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For invoking the proceeding under section 129(3) of the CGST Act, section 130 of the CGST Act was required to be read together, where the intent to evade payment of tax is mandatory, but while issuing notice or while passing the order of detention, seizure or demand of penalty, tax, no such intent of the petitioner was observed. Once the dealer has intimated the attending and mediating circumstances under which eway bill of the purchasing dealer was cancelled, it was a minor breach. The authority could have initiated proceedings under section 122 of the CGST Act instead of proceedings under section 129 of the CGST Act. Section 129 of the CGST Act must be read with section 130 of the said Act, which mandate the intention to evade payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the destination within time for the reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioners." 12. Further, the High Court of Telangana in M/s Same Deutzfahr India P Limited (Writ Petition No. 13392/2020, decided on 23.9.2020) has held as under:- "14. Once it is clear that petitioner has additional place of business in the State of Telangana in Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and the goods were being transported to that address from its Corporate office at Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State, it cannot be said that the petitioner was indulging in any illegal activity when the tax invoice shows that the supplier is the petitioner's Corporate office in Ranipet, Tamil Nadu State and that it was shipped to its Depot in Bongulur village in Ibrahi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
