AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of transaction the petitioner was having the said GSTIN. In the normal course of business the petitioner purchases Supara (Areca Nuts) from a registered dealer situated at Gurgaon, Haryana i.e. M/s Gaurav Gtraders Shop No. 2 Kherki Daula, Gurugram, Haryana having GSTIN No. 06ANMPG5419N2ZL. For the said transaction the seller issued Tax Invoice No. 7, E-Way bill and GR No.28 dated 27.9.2020. The goods were being transported from Gurgaon, Haryana to Robertsganj, U.P. The goods were interceptred by respondent no.2; statement of the driver was taken on MOV 01 dated 30.9.2020 and physical verification of the goods was also done in MOV 04 dated 5.10.2020. Thereafter MOV 06 was issued detaining the goods. A notice under section 129(3) of the GST Act was issued in MOV 07 dated 5.10.2020. A supplementary notice was also issued on 17.10.2020 in which the stand was taken that the product in question was not Arecanut/Betul Nut but there was processed Betul Nut and thereafter MOV 09 dated 21.10.2020 was issued. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed GST APL 01 on 29.10.2020 before respondent no.1 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.8.2021. Hence the present writ petition. 5. Le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voked for imposing penalty. In support of his submission he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Tax No. 28 of 2023 (M/s Riya Traders vs. State of U.P. And another) decided on 17.1.2023 and in Writ Tax No. 1580 of 2022 (M/s Margo Brush India and others vs. State of U.P. And others) decided on 16.1.2023. 9. He further submits that once the goods accompanying with proper documents such as tax invoice, e-way bill and GR the goods ought not to have been seized. In support of his contention he has relied upon the the judgments in Writ Tax No. 600 of 2022 (M/s Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Co. And another vs. State of U.P. And others) decided on 17.5.2022 and in Writ Tax No. 1464 of 2022 (S/S S.K. Trading Co. And another vs. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal) and another) decided on 16.3.2023. He further submits that at the time of interception of goods statement of the driver was taken wherein it has been recorded that goods were to be unloaded at Robertganj, U.P. but subsequently some statement was recorded that too was not uploaded on website/ MOV that goods to be uploaded at Ghaziabad and not at Robertsganj, which cannot be relied upon. In support of his submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound which was other than the disclosed in the accompanying documents as Arecanut/Betul Nut. He further submits that the transaction was not genuine, therefore the impugned order has rightly been passed. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record 13. The GST Act is a complete Code in itself. Various provisions, Rules and Forms are prescribed as well as various steps are also to be followed in an appropriate circumstances to be taken by the assessees as well as by the State authority. There is no room for deviation from it. The provision and the Rules are to be complied with strictly. In another words the action/working of the officers of State authority should be transparent. 14. Admittedly the goods in question was coming from Gurgaon, Haryana to Robertsganj, U.P. The goods were incepted on onwards journey on 30.9.2020 under the GST Act. 15. Admittedly the goods were accompanied with tax invoice, e-way bill and GR which shows that the goods were originated from Gurgaon, Haryana and to be terminated at Robertsganj, U.P.. The goods were intercepted and detained on 30.9.2020 and the documents were produce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issed. 17. On perusal of the record it reveals that the statement of the truck driver was recorded in MOV 1 on 30.9.2020, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 2 to the writ petition in which no such fact was mentioned by the detaining/ seizing authority in the detention order dated 5.10.2020 in Form GST MOV 6 that the driver made a statement that goods were to be unloaded at Ghaziabad. Further no discrepancy was found by the seizing authority in the accompanying goods with regard to quantity, quality or item disclosed. The detention of the goods cannot be said to be justified as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Tax No. 6000 of 2020. 18. Further the record reveals that the petitioner from the very beginning has taken a stand on the threat or varition of the tax invoice and e way bill which were generated and submitted on 30.9.2020 before the authority, cannot be taken adverse to the petitioner as the goods accompanying tax invoice no. 7 and e-way bill accompanying the same was valid on the date of detention/ interception on 30.9.2020 and passing the order on 5.10.2020. The validity of the e way bill with regard to earlier transaction was valid upto 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 5.10.2020 i.e. physical verification report copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the MOV 04 dated 5.10.2020 it is evidently clear that after physical verification goods were found as per disclosed documents and in absence of any justification as mentioned herein above, upto this Court the product as treated as different as disclosed by the Revenue cannot be accepted, therefore, the action for seizure/ detention, demand of levy of penalty is vitiated. 24. Record further reveals that the respondents have brought on record various materials to justify their action as well as filed the same before the first appellate authority as additional evidence. The additional evidence has wrongly been accepted by the first appellate authority and before accepting the said additional evidence neither any notice was given to the petitioner nor any reason has been assigned. Rule 112 of the Rules has been considered by this Court in Anandeshwar Traders (supra) and writ petition was allowed on 18.1.2021 wherein this Court has held that additional evidence cannot be led at the instance of the State-respondent in appeal. Once it has been laid....