2020 (9) TMI 1057

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....State of Telangana shows that its principal place of business is Hayathnagar and it has also additional place of business at Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. 3. The petitioner dispatched 4 tractors to its Depot at Hyderabad under consignment dt.03-03-2020 and also issued e.way bill bearing No.541172396402 on the same day. The name of the consignor and consignee is the same and the address of the consignee is shown at Hayathnagar. 4. The 3rd respondent, however, detained the lorry bearing No.TN52W9857 on 05.03.2020 at 8.20 a.m. on the ground that there was mismatch between the goods in movement and documents tendered and that there is also mismatch between e.way bill and goods in movement. He also endorsed in the order of detent....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... event in it. 9. It is contended that the deviation pointed by the 3rd respondent in the detention order is unsustainable because the GST registration of the petitioner in the State of Telangana itself shows its principal place of business at Hayathnagar and additional place at Bongulur village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal and therefore the 3rd respondent acted illegally in recovering tax and penalty from the petitioner by detaining the goods referred to above. 10. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that he was not aware that the petitioner had got depots at different places in the country. He also stated that it was not reflected in the invoice or the e.way bill. He contended that when he issued show cause notice, the petitioner di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 Ibrahimpatnam Mandal. 15. There was no occasion for the 3rd respondent to collect tax and penalty from the petitioner on the pretext that there is illegality in the transport of goods as it would merely amount to stock transfer and there is no element of sale of g....