2024 (2) TMI 593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 3.11.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal), Nyayik Sambhag (Legal Division)- Fourth, Commercial Tax, Lucknow thereby rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirming the order of the adjudicating authorities dated 09.08.2018 thereby in exercise of power under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. GST Act imposing the penalty for an amount of Rs. 20,241/- as well as tax of Rs. 20,241/-. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer under the GST Act and is in business of manufacturing and sale of FMCG goods. It has Head Office in Bombay and for the State of U.P., the office is situated at 120/143 Lajpat Nagar, Kanpur and also has its branch office at Ghaziabad, Varanasi and Lu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a registered dealer and adhering to the provisions of GST in its letter and spirit. It is stated that in the normal course of business, the petitioner made a stock transfer from its Patna Branch to Lucknow Branch and the vehicle in which the goods were being transported was accompanying with all proper documents, such as, stock transfer of challan, e-way bill etc. and no discrepancy was found in any of the said document except the date indicated in the e-way bill and the branch transfer invoice. 6. He further submits that the goods in question, there is no liability to tax as the goods were being sent from the petitioner's one unit to another and furt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as branch transfer invoice. In the e-way bill the date occurring was 2.8.2018 while in the branch transfer invoice the date was 31.07.2018. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the e-way bill the date indicated was 2.8.2018 because it was generated on the same day and the person who had generated the said bill failed to incorporate the said date as the bill was generated in the online form and he did not make the particular selection in the date. It is due to the said human error, the error has occurred, which is neither intentional nor is there any evasion of tax. 11. Learned Standing Counsel also could not dispute the fact that once the authorities had noticed that the goods were being transfer....