2023 (1) TMI 1128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Gold', having its place of business at Chembukavu in Thrissur district. The 2nd petitioner is an acquaintance of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner was travelling on a train from Thrissur to Alleppy on 07.09.2022. He was carrying some gold ornaments from Thrissur to Alleppy, at the instance of the 1st petitioner. 2. The 2nd petitioner was detained at about 02.35 pm by the officials of the Railway Protection Force (RPF). On being questioned as to the documents available with the 2nd petitioner for carrying the gold, he is stated to have shown certain documents on his mobile phone, which did not appear satisfactory to the Railway Protection Force. Thereafter, by about 05.55 pm, the 1st petitioner reportedly brought certain documents, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d and concluded against the petitioners under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. It is submitted that immediately after the RPF had intercepted the goods, the goods were subject matter of physical verification and the physical verification report suggests that the quantity of gold ornaments recovered from the 2nd petitioner had a total weight of 724.99 gms whereas the labour invoice and other documents produced to substantiate that the goods were being transported in a bona fide manner, showed that the total quantity was approximately 825 gms. It is submitted that this discrepancy itself is sufficient to prove that the proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts was completely warranted as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. The undisputed facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner was carrying certain gold ornaments in a train from Thrissur to Alleppy. He was initially intercepted by the officials attached to the Railway Protection Force and the 2nd petitioner was able to only shown certain documents on his mobile phone, which according to the petitioners, suggest that the gold ornaments were being carried in a valid manner and in accordance with all the requirements of the CGST/SGST Acts and the Rules made thereunder. It is also not disputed before me that, by the time, the State GST officers got involved in the matter, the 1^st petitioner had produced certain documents, which according to the petitioners, are sufficient to carry gold in the manner carr....