TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rade-II (Appeal) dismissed GST Appeal No. 90/2024 for the year 2023- 24 and affirmed the original order bearing No. ZD090124161522N dated 19.01.2024, passed under Section 129 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017. 1.1 The dispute relates to detention of goods and imposition of penalty amounting to Rs. 2,51,196/-, in respect of goods covered by invoice, e-invoice and valid e-way bill. 1.2 The appellant is a registered proprietorship concern engaged in manufacturing business. The goods in question were being transported from the appellant's business premises at Arazi No. 1071, Mubarakpur, Akabarpur, Kanpur Dehat to the declared destination under a valid tax invoice, e-invoice and e-way bill. 1.3 The goods were intercepted on 14.01.2024. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re should be a prima facie material on the basis of which the authority may arrive at the satisfaction that the goods are liable to be seized under Section 129 of the GST Act, therefore, the show cause notice should be quashed and set aside. 3.4 Further the appellant submitted that the goods were detained on flimsy ground, on the basis of presumptions and surmises. The detention and entire proceedings are bad in law, therefore, penalty order is liable to be set aside. 3.5 The appellant has relied upon several judicial precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High courts, which are as below- i. In the case of M/s. Satyam Shivam papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asstt Com ST & Others [2020 UPTC (108) -Telangan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side and relief claimed may be granted as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case to be granted. 4. Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned Assistant Commissioner of SGST, authorized representative appeared on behalf of the department and contested the grounds of appeal and submissions made by the appellant. 4.1 Learned Assistant Commissioner, emphasized the order passed by the adjudicating authority as well as the order passed by the first appellate authority. 4.2 Learned Assistant Commissioner submitted that the Order in Original and Order in Appeal, were legal and proper and called for no interference. 5. Findings- 5.1 We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. In the present case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "if the movement of the goods is in compliance of the provisions of GST Act, the same can't be detained on the basis of presumptions and assumptions." In the case of State of Kerala vs M.M. Mathew reported in 1978 STC (42) 848 that the presumption can not take place of evidence - It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Strong suspicion, strange coincidences and grave doubt cannot take place of legal proof. In the case of M/s. Anandeshwar traders Vs. State of U.P. [ 2021 U.P.T.C. (Vol-197) -421] Tax and Penalty was imposed on the petitioner on the allegation of reuse of E-way Bill- In appeal filed by the assess, the appeal authority admitted additional evidence at the behest of the revenue and dismissed appeal a....