2025 (6) TMI 1421

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7, and GSTIN: 29AYTPK8958N1ZZ. It is engaged in the supply of Dry Grapes. The conveyance bearing No.KA-28-C-9782 carrying Dry Grapes from Vijayapur to Coimbatore (TN) was intercepted by the second respondent on 04.07.2021 at Vanagiri Toll Plaza, Kustagi, Karnataka. The person in charge of the conveyance tendered the Tax Invoice and E-way Bill. On verification of the tendered documents, the Commercial Taxes Department suspected the movement of Copra from Vijayapura to Coimbatore. The Tax Department obtained a statement from the person in charge of the goods vehicle on 04.07.2021 in the Form GST MOV-01 and recorded the statement in a separate sheet. The physical verification was conducted on 05.07.2021 in the presence of a person in charge of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Goods and Services Tax, is an indirect tax imposed on the supply of goods and services. In the present case, the conveyance was intercepted on the Fourth day of July 2021, and upon verification of the tendered documents by the person in charge, the authorities suspected the movement of the goods, i.e., Copra from Vijayapura to Coimbatore. However, on verification, it was found that there were no Copras in the vehicle. The petitioner strongly objected to the illegal action of the tax authorities. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was a typographical error, and there was no intent to evade any amount of tax. On the other hand, the Government specifically contended that there is a mismatch of the goods and that the petitio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry duties and taxes had been paid. The burden of proof lies on the petitioner in certain cases, but when the error is a typographical or clerical one, the initial burden of proof is on the tax authorities to demonstrate an intention to evade tax. In this case, the department failed to establish such intent and did not discredit the documents provided by the petitioner. Furthermore, there is a tabular column in the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals). There are certain discrepancies in mentioning the quantity of the grapes in the table. The first respondent has just confirmed the order passed by the original authority. As already noted above, there was no evasion of tax by the petitioner. However, the Orig....