2024 (12) TMI 1006

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... arbitrarily and without applying due consideration, as the physical verification of the goods after detention tallied with the measurements mentioned in the supply invoices and the tax rate was accurately stated as 18%. Moreover, the show cause notice is a result of non-application of mind, and the order issued is without jurisdiction. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that the petitioner carries on business under the name and style of Ekta Trading Co., with a registered office in Liluah, West Bengal. The petitioner is engaged in the business of trading iron and steel and is registered under the GST Act with registration number 19AYPPS0020H1ZC, effective from 01.07.2017. The petitioner raised invoices for the sale of M.S. TMT Bars and Shutter Profiles to M/s. New Binodray Traders in Odisha, with the corresponding e-way bills issued for the goods on 13.06.2024 and 15.06.2024. The goods were loaded onto the same vehicle (WB-41E-3476) for transportation. 3. On 17.06.2024, the vehicle was intercepted by the State Tax Officer, Respondent No. 5, at Panskura, East Medinipur, NH-06. The vehicle was detained and FORM GST MOV-01 (Statement of Owner/Driver/Person-in-charge) was issued. Howeve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, the physical verification noted slight differences in terms of shape and size. These differences do not indicate an intention to evade taxes, as the appellant is a legitimate trader, and such variations in description are common in the trade. 8. The investigation authorities wrongly assumed different fair market values based on minor differences in the size of goods such as TMT bars. The petitioner asserts that the authorities improperly split the shutter profile into different components and applied different fair market values, which is not supported by the law. The petitioner's business operates under standard trade practices and the authorities' conclusions regarding tax evasion were unfounded. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the actions of the respondents in detaining the vehicle, issuing multiple notices, and imposing penalty are illegal and arbitrary. The detention was conducted under Section 129 of the WBGST Act, which mandates detention of goods only when goods are transported without valid documents or in contravention of the Act. However, in this case, all the required documents, including tax invoices and e-way bills, were prese....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n purposes is legally untenable. 14. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the detention of the goods, the demand for penalties, and the entire legal process are based on incorrect assertions, procedural violations, and a failure to understand the legal framework. As a result, the petitioner requests the immediate release of the goods and the quashing of all subsequent proceedings. The petitioner maintains that no evasion of tax occurred, and therefore, no penalties should be imposed under Section 129 of the CGST Act. 15. Submissions of the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent is that the seized goods exhibit a substantial deviation in both their description and quantity compared to what was declared. This discrepancy has directly resulted in a difference in the transaction value, pointing towards a deliberate attempt to evade tax by the Registered Taxable Person (hereinafter referred to as 'RTP') herein the petitioner. Such deviations undermine the accuracy and reliability of the declarations made by the taxpayer, which are foundational for assessing tax liability. 16. Further, the valuation of the physically verified goods was conducted based on available market infor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 72666   ETC/123/2024-25 dated 150.06.2024 Shutter Profile 12290 Kg Rs. 65.50 Rs. 804995 Rs. 144899 G I Roll 773 Kg Rs. 70 Rs. 50244 Rs. 9044   M S Spring 1060 Kg Rs. 80 Rs. 84800 Rs. 15264 G I Plate 474 Kg Rs. 65 Rs. 30810 Rs. 5546 G I Side Patti 1202.6 Kg Rs. 70 Rs. 78168 Rs. 14070 G I Rolling Shutter Strip 8781 kg Rs. 75 Rs. 658576 Rs. 11854 3 Total       Rs. 804995 Rs. 144899       Rs. 902598 Rs. 162467   ETC/119/2024-25 dated 13.06.2024 M S TMT Bar 17300 Kg Rs. 50.50 Rs. 873650 Rs. 157257 6 MM TMT Bar 11000 Kg Rs. 51 Rs. 561000 Rs.10098 0   4 MM TMT Bar 6300 Kg Rs. 60 Rs. 378000 Rs. 68040 Total       Rs. 873650 Rs. 157257       Rs. 939000 Rs. 169020 Tax Evasion to the Tune of Rs.169020-Rs.157257= Rs.11763   Total Tax Evasion in the Consignment = Rs.42140 21. In light of the above, the appellate authority's decision to affirm the adjudication order is entirely justified. The findings are based on substantial evidence and legal principles. Therefore, it is submitted by the respondent authorities that the writ petition ....