2022 (9) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the amount of penalty deposited by the petitioner may be directed to be refunded. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of Trading of Ready-made garments etc. and is registered with UP GST as well as VAT Act 2008. It is stated that on 17.04.2018, the respondent no.1 inspected the vehicle transporting the goods of the petitioner at Auraiya, U.P. The said goods were being transported from Gurgaon Haryana to Rae Bareli U.P. and at the time of inspection, the department found that the e-way bill was incomplete as Part- B of the e-way bill was not available. Consequently, the vehicle in question was detained for verification. Subsequently, the mobile squad seized the goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, the petitioner was called upon to pay the tax of Rs.1,36,300/- and penalty of the like amount which the petitioner paid and has got the goods released in his favour. The appellate authority while deciding the appeal recorded the submission of the petitioner, however, did not take note of the circular issued by the Ministry of Finance or Clarificatory Circular issued by the department as contained in Annexure no.13 and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. He also places reliance on the circular dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance highlighting that the powers under section 129 of the CGST Act should not be invoked in case of minor errors as disclosed in paragraph 5 of the Circular which includes an error in one or two digits/cha....