TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner contends that it made an intra-State supply of paper through a tax invoice dt.04.01.2020 (Ex.P.2) to M/s. Sri Ayappa Stationery and General Stores, Station Road, Medchal in Telangana State which is also registered under the GST Act and had also generated an e-way bill dt.04.01.2020 (Ex.P.3). According to it, the goods were delivered to a transporter for making delivery to the consignee by an auto trolley bearing No.TS 07 UF 1008. 4. Petitioner contends that the auto trolley started for delivery of the paper at 04:33 p.m. on 04.01.2020 to the consignee, but on its way, on account of a political rally being conducted by certain political parties opposing Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), traffic was blocked at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, that the road got jammed from all corners and the auto trolley could not move forward or backward. Petitioner alleges that this continued till 08:30 p.m. and by that time, the shop of the buyer could be closed, and so the auto trolley driver took the trolley to his residence with the goods so as to deliver them on the next working day. 5. 04.01.2020 was a Saturday, and 5.1.2020 was a Sunday, and the next....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on 22.01.2020 in Form GST MOV-09 ignoring the representations submitted by petitioner on 07.01.2020 and 08.01.2020 and also the decision of the Allahabad High Court, and mentioning that petitioner admitted that tax and penalty are payable, which is factually incorrect since the petitioner had never admitted the same. 12. According to petitioner, only after payment of the amount of Rs. 69,000/- on 22.01.2020, release order was issued by the Senior Assistant attached to the Office of the 2nd respondent. 13. Petitioner also alleges that the impugned order has been passed by the Senior Assistant on behalf of the 2nd respondent and he is not authorized to pass such an order. Counter-affidavit of 2nd respondent: 14. Counter-affidavit was filed by 2nd respondent stating that he was authorized by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Begumpet Division to conduct vehicular checks; that three vehicles including the vehicle bearing No.TS 07 UF 1008 were stopped by him and the documents were checked and since the e-way bills were valid only up to 05.01.2020 12:00 a.m. and were not valid on 06.01.2020 when the checking was done by him, he was entitled to detain them; and that the drivers of the au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile phone, but the dealer willfully did not do so, and expiry of the e-way bill cannot be treated as a technical mistake. He justified the levy of penalty and tax on the petitioner in this manner. Reply-affidavit of petitioner : 23. Reply-affidavit was filed by petitioner refuting the allegations leveled by 2nd respondent. 24. The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent did not disclose the proceedings number through which the Joint Commissioner (ST), Begumpet Division, Hyderabad authorized him to conduct the check of vehicles and he did not even file it along with the counter-affidavit. 25. The petitioner further contended that though there were four auto trolleys, one of which had reached the destination and delivered the paper boxes, the remaining three trolleys could not deliver the paper on 04.01.2020 due to CAA and NRC rallies at Bashierbagh, Hyderabad. It stated that they started on 06.01.2020 for delivery of goods before the expiry of the e-way bill period, and hence the detention notice issued is illegal and bad in law. 26. Petitioner further alleges in this reply-affidavit that the detention notice dt.06.01.2020 is signed by the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.O.), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there is no dispute raised by the 2nd respondent about the holding of political rally opposing the CAA and NRC at Bashierbagh, Hyderabad on 04.01.2020 resulting in traffic jam; and that the 2nd respondent also did not dispute that the consignee's shop would be closed by 08:30 p.m. on 04.01.2020. According to him, there was no occasion to levy penalty because the 2nd respondent failed to prove any mens rea on the part of petitioner , that penalty proceedings are quasi criminal in nature and reliance is placed on the decision of Andhra Pradesh in Delta Lubricants, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 43 APSTJ 27. 35. We have noted the submissions of both sides. Consideration by the Court : 36. The admitted facts are that petitioner had dispatched goods on the auto trolley bearing No.TS 07 UF 1008 on 04.01.2020 and the driver of the auto trolley had in his possession tax invoice (Ex.P.2) dt.04.01.2020 as well as e-way bill (Ex.P.3) dt.04.01.2020, and that the distance to be traveled by the auto trolley was only 36 kms. 37. Petitioner alleges that the said auto trolley along with other auto trolleys started for delivery of the paper at 04:33p.m. on 04.01.2020 to the consig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nowhere mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by 2nd respondent. It was the duty of 2nd respondent to consider the explanation offered by petitioner as to why the goods could not have been delivered during the validity of the e-way bill, and instead he is harping on the fact that the e-way bill is not extended even four (04) hours before the expiry or four (04) hours after the expiry, which is untenable. The 2nd respondent merely states in the counter affidavit that there is clear evasion of tax and so he did not consider the said explanations. This is plainly arbitrary and illegal and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because there is no denial by the 2nd respondent of the traffic blockage at Basher Bagh due to the anti CAA and NRC agitation on 4.1.2020 up to 8.30 pm preventing the movement of auto trolley for otherwise the goods would have been delivered on that day itself. He also does not dispute that 04.01.2020 was a Saturday, 05.01.2020 was a Sunday and the next working day was only 06.01.2020. . 42. How the 2nd respondent could have drawn an inference that petitioner is evading tax merely because the e-way bill has expired is also nowhere explained in ....