TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1665
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 2017, the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he carries on business under the name and style of a proprietorship concern M/s Maa Kamakhya Traders. The Petitioner acting as consignor, dispatched 493 bags of Assam dried areca nuts having a net weight of 34,510 kg to the consignee, Shri Raghavendra Swami Traders, situated at Uttara Kannada, Karnataka. The goods were transported through a vehicle bearing registration No. AP39UN 9869 belonging to Nagpur Assam Roadlines. The goods were accompanied by all requisite documents, including the e-way bill, e-invoice, and consignment note, as mandated under Rule 138A of the CGST Rules, 2017. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated 03.06.2025 is appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 and inquired why he is not availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from lack of jurisdiction and that insisting on statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal would result in grave injustice, especially when the tax liability has been determined on the basis of unsubstantiated market value rather than the declared transaction value. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon 2022 (16) SCC 447 to substantiate that appeal is not the appropriate remedy for him in the present case. 7. The learned counsel further argues that the conclusion regarding excess goods (590 kg) was arriv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....UP reported (2024) 167 Taxmann.Com 350 and Rajeev Traders vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 142 Taxmann.Com 420, to substantiate that penalty cannot be imposed by enhancing the valuation of goods. He relied upon 2024 (161) Taxmann.Com 205 and 2009 (9) SCC 466 to establish that respondents cannot incorporate new grounds at a later stage which were not part of the record. 9. The learned counsel for the Respondent raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, asserting that the Petitioner has bypassed the statutory appellate remedy. It is further submitted that, as per the driver's statement, he expressed ignorance about the consignor and consignee. The Respondent contends that the weighment was conduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was only 35003 kg. The Court notes that the Petitioner has not placed on record any reliable material to dispute the said weighment figures. 12. Furthermore, the documents submitted by the Petitioner including the tax invoice, e-way bill, and consignment note do not disclose the approximate weight of each bag, which could have served to rebut the Respondents' inference of excess quantity. Although, the Petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond to the notice issued under Section 129(3), yet no supplementary documents, such as the original purchase invoice from the supplier, weighment certificate issued at the time of loading, or proof of bank transaction showing consideration paid by the consignee, were submitted to establish th....