2026 (7) TMI 978

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1. The State has preferred this intra court appeal challenging the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP. No. 16845/2022 (TIS), whereby the learned Single Judge passed the following order: "The petition is allowed, and the third respondent's impugned order dated 16.03.2022 [Annexure-A] is quashed and the third respondent's ex-parte order dated 09.11.2020 is modified confining the penalty payable by the petitioner to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and the fourth respondent is directed to ensure that the remaining amount deposited by the petitioner is refunded within the period of six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 2. The brief facts which are necessary for adjudic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....used the impugned order and material on record. 4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned HCGP primarily contended that the respondent has failed to demonstrate before the Authority that the transportation of machinery under delivery challan was part of original transaction and independent of any fresh consideration by placing sufficient documents. In such circumstance, it must necessarily deemed to be a supply and as such, the 3rd and 4th appellants are justified in levying and collection of tax. She would also contend that information was furnished before the commencement of transportation as contemplated under Rule 138 of CGST Rule. According to her, since the respondent not generated E-way bill with necessary information befo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he only question that would arise for our consideration is- Whether the order under challenge requires any interference at the hands of this Court? 8. As could be gathered from records, undisputedly the respondent purchased the machinery under a purchase order and invoices in the month of July, 2020 from Coimbatore and transported to its unit at Ahmednagar, Maharashtra and later the machinery was re-transported to Coimbatore for performing testing. The contention of the appellants is that the said transaction has to be treated as separate and distinct transaction and not part of the original transaction. The provisions of Section 7(1)(a) CGST/KGST Act stipulates that supply of goods or service or both goods either as sale, transfer, b....