2022 (4) TMI 704

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I The petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 24/06/2019 passed by Sales Tax Officer which is contained in Annexure P/3 and also the order dated 31/10/2019 passed by Joint Commissioner, State Tax cum Appellate Officer, State GST contained in Annexure P/5. The petitioner has further prayed that respondent Authorities be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 89,422/- alongwith interest to the writ petitioner. 2. The factual matrix of the case in hand reveals that petitioner firm is engaged in the work of selling of P & G recycled bags. It is averred in the petition that one SIDWIN FABRIC PVT. LTD. approached the petitioner and placed an order of purchase of P & G recycled bags quantity measuring 4771.2 kg. The petitioner further submits t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....019 and upon inspection of vehicle no. GJ-01-FT-7770, they found that courier invoices in which, consigner details were shown as AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. whereas the e-way bill for the same transaction which was generated by petitioner, reflected the detail of petitioner instead of AVGOL India Pvt. Ltd. 4. Thus, the proceedings under Section 129 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, were drawn which ultimately ensued in passing of an order of penalty dated 26/04/2019 by which, authority imposed the penalty of Rs. 89,422/- upon the petitioner. Petitioner submits that under compulsion, petitioner deposited the said amount of penalty as well as tax and receipt of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P/4 to the writ petition. Ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....clerical mistake. Thus, by placing the reliance upon the decision passed by the co-ordinate bench dated 04/02/2021 passed in W.P. No. 12913/2020, the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 6. Per-contra, the counsel for respondents have supported the orders which are impugned in the writ petition, it is submitted on behalf of respondents that petitioner cannot take recourse to the order passed by co-ordinate bench inasmuch as, the facts of both the cases are distinguishable inasmuch as, in the present case, both the seller and the purchaser are experienced and registered tax payer in GST and they were well within the know of the proceedings pertaining to transportation of goods and, it could not have been expect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt petitioner to be dispatcher of the goods and the statutory liability was fastened upon the petitioner by way of the order of imposition of tax as well as penalty. 8. The co-ordinate bench while dealing with almost an identical issue where also the petitioner in that petition erroneously entered its own name in the column of consignee whereas the details of their forwarding agent ought to have been mentioned in the e-way bill, the co-ordinate bench while finding the same to be a bona fide error, allowed the writ petition while quashing the order of imposition of penalty but simultaneously referred to a circular dated 14/09/2018 which is issued by the Ministry of Finance bearing no. CBEC/20/16/03/2017- GST. A perusal of paragraph 12 of th....