2023 (11) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-14092023-248743 dated 14.09.2023. 3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.1.2022 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, State Goods and Services Tax, Khataunil Unit Muzaffarnagar, respondent no. 3 and the order dated 2.7.2022 passed by Additional Commissioner, Grade -2 (Appeal), State Goods and Services Tax Muzaffarnagar, respondent no. 2. 4. Brief facts of the case as stated, are that the petitioner is a proprietorship concerned having GSTIN No. 09AAPFG6376E1ZY and engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of laminated papers. In the normal course of business, the goods were loaded on Truck no. RJ 01 GC 4269 for dispatch from Muzaffarnagar to Rajasthan along with tax invoice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e proceeding. He submitted that the petitioner has duly explained the discrepancy, which has been occurred due to clerical error of his accountant and in support thereof, also filed an affidavit of the accountant but none of the authorities have considered the same. The petitioner has no intention to evade the payment of tax as such the impugned order is not justified in the eyes of law and same is liable to the quashed. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in M/s Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, (Writ Tax No. 602 of 2018, decided on 9.4.2018) and M/s Bhumika Enterprises Vs. State of UP and others (Writ Tax No. 564 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner produced another bill i.e. tax invoice no. 140 of 25.1.2022 along with e-way bill. The said fact is not disputed by any of the authorities below. While issuing show cause notice in GST MOV 09 the authorities below has recorded a finding which is quoted hereunder:- 10. The authorities below has not accepted the documents on the ground that same were produced after the movement of goods. But lost the site of the fact that the discrepancies were cured before the detention or seizure order could be passed. 11. Once the documents were produced before passing of the detention / seizure order, the authorities ought not to have proceeded further as held by the the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of M/S Axpress ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 28628 कि. ग्रा. है, जबकि इ-वे बिल में मात्रा 170588 कि. ग्रा. घोषित है, जोकि UPGST Act 2017 के नियम 138 (A) का उल्लंघन है। भौतिक सत्यापन पर आपके द्वारा एकॉउंटेंट की गलती बताते....