TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1181
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Company and having GSTIN number. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner received a purchase order from one M/s Telecommunication Consultant India Limited (TCIL) for delivery of batteries, UPS and its supporting parts to consignee M/s ANA Business Ventures at Lucknow. It is further submitted that the petitioner has two places of business in the State of U.P., one at Noida and other at Lucknow, which is the principal place of business. For the aforesaid purchase order, some parts were procured from Noida unit of the petitioner; however, the invoices of the goods were only raised by the Lucknow unit of the petitioner and the delivery challan was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the goods have merely been seized that the shipping address given in the document was not shown as an additional place of business of the petitioner. It is further submitted that on the said ground, the goods cannot be seized. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of 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)]. 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the additional place....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s Sleevco Traders (supra) 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 goods was to be made to the buyer of the petitioner i.e. K.R. Industries, Sandila, U.P. was specifically mentioned. In other words e-way bill clearly mentions the name of the buyer i.e. petitioner and ship to K.R. Industries, Sandila (U.P.). The e-way bill, generated by the Maharastra party was valid up to 15.2.2020, copy of which has been filed as Annexure no. 1 to the present petition. It is not a case of the department that the goods which were coming in pursuance of the purchase order of the petitioner from Maharastra which were to be delive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 value of more than Rs. 50,000/-. The Revenue has neither disputed the e-way bill generated by Maharastra party nor the goods in question were found different than mentioned in the e-way bill of the Maharastra party and the tax invoices issued by the petitioner. Some difference of value has been mentioned which occurs only on charges of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. on the tax invoice issued by the petitioner cannot suggest any contravention of the provisions of the Act read with Rule 138 A of G.S.T. Rules. Once the valid document i.e. e-way bill was acco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 traffic blockage due to agitation, are taken into consideration, the State alone remains responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic. Having said so; having found no question of law being involved; and having found this petition itself being rather misconceived, we are constrained to enhance the amount of costs imposed in this matter by the High Court. The High Court has awarded costs to the writ petitioner in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in relation to tax and penalty of Rs. 69,000/- (Rupees Sixty-n....