TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court Directs Lawful Proceedings Against Petitioner, Upholds Tax Imposition</h1> <h3>M/s Ranchi Carrying Corporation Versus Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And 2 Others</h3> The High Court set aside earlier orders and directed respondents to proceed against the petitioner lawfully. Subsequently, an order imposing tax and ... Levy of tax and penalty - details not matching with verifying sheets - Section 129 (3) of UPGST 2017 - HELD THAT:- By the impugned orders the authorities below have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the details mentioned in the invoices at serial nos.1 to 9 are not matching with the verifying sheets available with the mobile squad. This much is also clearly reflected from the record that the petitioner has transported the goods in violation of Rule 138. The findings have been recorded by the authorities below that it was fraudulently done and the penalty was also levied on the petitioner. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Quashing of impugned orders dated 31.3.2021 and 30.1.2021 under Section 129 (3) of UPGST 2017.2. Violation of Rule 138 in transportation of goods.3. Rejection of petitioner's claim and imposition of tax and penalty.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought to quash the orders dated 31.3.2021 and 30.1.2021 passed by the first and second respondents under Section 129 (3) of UPGST 2017. The High Court noted that in a previous writ petition, the petitioner was granted relief due to a failure of natural justice. The Court set aside the earlier orders and directed the respondents to conclude proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the law. Pursuant to this, a show cause notice was issued, and upon dissatisfaction with the petitioner's reply, the impugned order dated 30.1.2021 was passed imposing tax and penalty amounting to Rs. 12,64,529 on the petitioner.2. The impugned orders were challenged on the grounds that the details in the invoices did not match with the verifying sheets available with the mobile squad, indicating a violation of Rule 138 in the transportation of goods. The authorities below found that the petitioner had transported goods in violation of the rule, fraudulently, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The petitioner's counsel failed to identify any errors in the impugned orders, and the Court concurred with the findings of the authorities, dismissing the writ petition due to lack of merit.3. The rejection of the petitioner's claim and the imposition of tax and penalty were upheld by the Court based on the findings of the authorities below regarding the mismatch in details and the fraudulent transportation of goods. The Court found no errors pointed out by the petitioner's counsel and thus dismissed the writ petition accordingly, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
