TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d penalty of Rs. 3,68,555/- on 04.01.2021 and then releasing the said vehicle, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and (iii) for refund of the said amounts. 2. The petitioner is a trader in steel registered under the CGST Act, 2017 having registered office at Ranigunj, Secunderabad. 3. The petitioner in the course of business purchased stainless steel pipes and tubes from M/s. Santosh Steel and Pipes India Private Limited, Dadra and Nagar Haveli. 4. The petitioner hired M/s. Anmol Parcel Services for transporting the material from Dadra and Nagar Haveli to Secunderabad. 5. The said transporter also booked the material of M/s. Simi Steels, Adoni , Kurnool District from the same vendor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Adoni without invoice and e- waybill' and proposed Rs. 3,68,555/- as GST and Rs. 3,68,555/- as penalty, and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 31.12.2020. 9. The petitioner submitted a reply on 02.01.2021 stating that the goods were destined to Hyderabad and Adoni from Dadra and Nagar Haveli, and while loading the goods in the goods vehicle, the goods of the petitioner were loaded first and the goods of M/s. Simi Steels were loaded at the top, for operational convenience by the transporter; and that as the goods of M/s. Simi Steels were loaded on top, they would have to first deliver them at Adoni, and then only the balance material would be unloaded at Hyderabad. It was pointed out that therefore the goods vehicle passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....old that there was any intention on the part of the petitioner to evade tax; and that there was also no material or evidence to show that the petitioner was unloading the material at some other place not mentioned in the invoice or the e-waybill and was trying to evade tax. 14. The petitioner contends that in spite of the driver explaining to the 1st respondent that, for operational convenience, the goods which were destined to Adoni were loaded on top for being delivered first, and that the vehicle was rightly proceeding towards Adoni, that he was a resident of Hyderabad and after delivering the goods at Adoni, he would then come back to Hyderabad, the 1st respondent did not consider his explanation and detained the vehicle. The stand of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....carrying the full load of 16.31 tonnes. 18. According to him, the load meant to the petitioner at Hyderabad was not offloaded and thereby it looked as if the said goods were also meant for another destination, that this is malpractice and violation of e- waybill rules and so the vehicle was detained rightly. The consideration by the Court 19. We do not appreciate the stand taken by the 1st respondent for the reason that the quantity consigned to the petitioner at Hyderabad was admittedly 14.30 tonnes and the quantity which was consigned to M/s. Simi Steels, Adoni was only 2.01 tonnes. Naturally for operational convenience the transporter would load the lesser quantity last and the larger quantity first, i.e. the larger quantity would then....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rverse and cannot be accepted. 24. It is also not the case of the 1st respondent that there is any prohibition for a consignor to load the consignments to two different destinations intended for two different parties in two different States on a single conveyance; and there is any rule that consignments intended for a party at a shorter distance should be offloaded first. 25. In our considered opinion, the 1st respondent had acted mechanically without application of mind to the operational convenience of the transporter. 26. Also for the bonafide action of the transporter, the 1st respondent cannot mulct the petitioner with tax and penalty. 27. The petitioner cannot be said to have any intention to evade tax if any mistake is, for the s....