TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Proprietorship concern and is registered under the GST Act. In the normal course of its business, the petitioner purchased MS Bar from one M/s Laxmi Traders, Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, the seller generated e-way bill for outward supply and other requisite documents. After arrival of the goods in the State of U.P., the petitioner instructed the driver of the vehicle for delivery of the goods at the business premises of one M/s Steel Center, Ghazipur, along with tax invoice, but on account of some technical glitch, the e-way bill was not generated, when the respondent no. 3 intercepted the vehicle during the course of unloading. Thereafter, on 10.09.2019, the petitioner presented ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecided on 20.02.2024] and submits that at the time of interception, when the goods were unloaded at a different place, the proceedings are justified. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that the goods in question were imported from M/s Laxmi Traders, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, who had issued tax invoice, e-way bill and RR. When the goods entered the State of U.P., on instruction from the petitioner, the same were sent to M/s Steel Center, Ghazipur and tax invoice was also issued. It has been stated that due to technical glitch in the server, e-way bill could not be generated at that time. The record shows that the vehicle, from which the goods were transported from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... genuine documents and e-way bill generated accompanying the goods from Chhattisgarh has not been cancelled. Once the genuineness of the documents accompanying the goods from Chhattisgarh to U.P. is not doubted, no evasion of tax can be levied or attributed to the petitioner merely on the basis of change of place of destination. 12. This Court in M/s Sleevco Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner & Another [Writ Tax No. 464/2021, decided on 17.05.2022], which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Additional Commissioner Vs. M/s Sleevco Traders [(2023) 8 Centax 173 (SC)], has held as under:- "12. The record further reveals that the e-way bill generated by the Maharastra party where the name of the petitioner and for delivery of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were unloaded in the business premisses of the petitioner and thereafter the goods were again sent from the business premisses of the petitioner to its ultimate buyer i.e. K.R. Industries, Sandila. Once the delivery of the goods which has not been taken by the petitioner, has not been disputed by the Revenue as well as validity of the e-way bill generated by Maharastra party, which was valid up to 15.2.2020 i.e. the date of detention and passing of the order under Section 129 (3) of the G.S.T. Act, there cannot be any violation or contravention of the provisions of G.S.T. Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. The purpose of Rule 138 A is that the information should be given to the department in respect of movement of the goods having ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Upon our having made these observations, learned counsel for the petitioners has attempted to submit that the questions of law in this case, as regards the operation and effect of Section 129 of Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and violation by the writ petitioner, may be kept open. The submissions sought to be made do not give rise to even a question of fact what to say of a question of law. As noticed hereinabove, on the facts of this case, it has precisely been found that there was no intent on the part of the writ petitioner to evade tax and rather, the goods in question could not be taken to the destination within time for the reasons beyond the control of the writ petitioner. When the undeniable facts, including the ....