Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID :

Movement of goods

Puneet Goyal

How to prove movement of goods to department in case of supply in same city (as in normal practice in Punjab, no bilty or transporter receipt provided in case of supply in same city) and pre e-way period ?

Is there any clarification, circular or notification where we can see what documents are required to prove movement of goods ?

Proving Goods Movement for GST in Punjab: Alternatives to Transporter Receipts for Intra-City Supplies Discussed A discussion on proving the movement of goods under GST in Punjab, especially for intra-city supplies where transporter receipts are typically not provided. Participants suggested using alternative documentation, such as truck owner bills, payment vouchers, stock records, or loading and unloading records, as evidence. Weighment slips were deemed unnecessary for goods sold by piece. A legal precedent from a Supreme Court ruling was highlighted, emphasizing the importance of providing comprehensive documentation to prove the genuineness of transactions and the physical movement of goods to claim Input Tax Credit (ITC). (AI Summary)
answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Amit Agrawal on Mar 6, 2023

I find it difficult to believe that 'as in normal practice in Punjab, no bilty or transporter receipt provided in case of supply in same city' (assuming you are referring to transport of goods through GTA).

There has to be something to prove such transport is indeed took place. If you have taken transport services directly from truck / lorry owner (instead of a GTA), you must have proofs of payment such as bill of truck / lorry owner, voucher etc. where identity of such truck / lorry owner, vehicle used for transport etc. can be established along-with payment made for such expenses.

Moreover, stock / inventory and associated records - both at end of seller & buyer - can also act as 'corroborative evidence' in such matters.

These are ex facie views of mine and the same should not be construed as professional advice / suggestion.

Shilpi Jain on Mar 9, 2023

Any weighment slips would be available either at your end or the customer end?

Puneet Goyal on Mar 10, 2023

The goods sold are in pcs not in weight (kg or Mt), so no weighment slips are required and available

Padmanathan KV on Mar 16, 2023

As rightly stated by Ld. Amit ji, there must be some document issued by transporter.

Moreover, bills for loading or unloading the goods/ entry in the loading and unloading book maintained by loading union etc, if done by outside loading workers/ union can be used. (if done by workers of the supplier and recipient itself, it may not be available). Stock statements, gatepass, etc. can be produced as corroboratory evidence.

Amit Agrawal on Mar 17, 2023

Legal reasoning & ratio/s of Apex Court ruling, as reported at 2023 (3) TMI 533 - SUPREME COURT, in case of THE STATEOFKARNATAKA VERSUS M/SECOMGILLCOFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, are worth noting in the context of the query raised and same is summarised in Para 15 of the judgement which reads as under:

"In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in absence of any further cogent material like furnishing the name and address of the selling dealer, details of the vehicle which has delivered the goods, payment of freight charges, acknowledgement of taking delivery of goods, tax invoices and payment particulars etc. and the actual physical movement of the goods by producing the cogent materials, the Assessing Officer was absolutely justified in denying the ITC, which was confirmed by the first Appellate Authority. Both, the second Appellate Authority as well as the High Court have materially erred in allowing the ITC despite the concerned purchasing dealers failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and failed to discharge the burden of proof as per section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court and the second Appellate Authority allowing the ITC are unsustainable and deserve to be quashed and set aside and are hereby quashed and set aside. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer denying the ITC to the concerned purchasing dealers, confirmed by the first Appellate Authority are hereby restored."

+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Issues