2024 (11) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondent no. 5 as well as the impugned order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 under section 129(3) of the GST Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a partnership concern and is dully registered under the GST Act having registration no. 09AARFB1585E1Z8. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of MS square, MTMS flat, etc. In its normal course of business, the petitioner sold the goods to M/s Alok Steel Traders. The said goods were transported by vehicle bearing registration no. UP65 R 8124. On the onward journey, the said goods were intercepted on 20.11.2020 by the Mobile Squad. At the time of interception of the goods, all the documents were accompanying the goods, exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her submits that the e-way bill was submitted after the detention of goods, which itself shows the intention of the petitioner to evade payment of tax. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is admitted between the parties that the goods in question were transported along with all relevant documents, except e-way bill. It is also not in dispute that the eway bill was produced before the seizure order could be passed. The said fact is evident from the pleading before the authorities below as well as in paragraph nos. 12 & 13 of the writ petition, which have not been denied in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The record further shows that no finding has been recorded with t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In addition to the above facts, the explanation given by the petitioner with regard to the delay in generation of the e-Way Bill due to the barrier imposed by the local administration on the occasion of 'Maghi Purnima, Kumbh Mela 2019' has also not been taken into consideration by the authorities below. Finally, the authorities have failed to indicate any specific reason that would indicate an intention for evasion of tax. As held by this Court in Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P. , reported in [2024] taxmann.com 200 (Allahabad), intention to evade tax is desideratum for the imposition of penalty. I am of the view that the authorities have acted beyond jurisdiction and imposed tax without there being any cogent reason for the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....separate tax invoices i.e. tax invoice no. 21 dated 12.7.2019 and tax invoice no. 22 dated 12.7.2019 were generated. So far as tax invoice no. 21 dated 12.7.2019 is concerned, there is no dispute in this respect. However so far as tax invoice no. 22 dated 12.7.2019 is concerned, admittedly, E-way bill was not produced at the time of detention and the same was produced before passing the seizure order. It is not in dispute that before the seizure order could be passed, proper E-way bill was produced and the authorities, at no stage, have pointed out any discrepancy in the said E-way bill. Once the E-way bill was produced before the seizure order could be passed, the discrepancy, if any, was cured. In view of above, the aforesaid judgements r....