2026 (4) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Counter-affidavit is taken on record. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 which was further challenged by the petitioner in appeal before the respondent no. 2, who on 15.11.25 dismissed the appeal, which prompted the petitioner to file the instant petition. 3. The record indicates that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of an order dated 16.12.2025 had required to respondents to file a counter-affidavit. 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was a consignee of the goods which were being transported from Raipur in the State of Chhattisgarh to Shimla in Himachal Pradesh. While the said goods were in transit, the vehicle in question bearing n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for Shimla and the necessary documents i.e. E-way bill, invoice and the consignee note were provided to the authorities. There was no material contrary thereto, yet the said documents were not considered and an order under Section 129(3) of the GST imposing the penalty was made against the petitioner. 8. It is also urged that vague findings have been recorded which have no material bearing with the material furnished by the petitioner and as such the findings are apparently against the material on record. Hence, the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law. 9. Shri Tomar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner has already deposited the necessary demand and his goods have also b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an order under Section 129(3). There was no material before the authorities to raise any suspicion regarding the movement of the goods as well as the documents furnished. 13. It was not the case of the department that the E-way bill as well as the consignee note and the tax invoice were fraudulent. In absence of the aforesaid element of fraud, the authority could not have ignored the document. Moreover, submission made on behalf of the authorities that the registration of the firm of the petitioner as well as that of Vidhya Kumari Sahu was cancelled, cannot come to the aid of authorities for the reason that admittedly the authorities issued a show cause notice to the seller firm namely Vidhya Kumari Sahu on 05.09.2025 and the order of c....