TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority / Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Unit Ist, Chandauli and Additional Commissioner Gr. II (Appeal-I), State Tax, Varanasi respectively have been challenged by filing instant appeal. 2. The grounds of appeal are being stated in brief. The impugned orders are contrary to facts and law due to reason that the authority below utterly failed to consider the facts that no discrepancies existed in document. The GST Act and Rules does not prescribe the provision to adopt any specific route by intercepted vehicle. The authorities below also failed to consider that by virtue of law the E-way Bill has only to contain the description of the place of supply and delivery and no route map is required to be detailed therein. The authorities below di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l mode learned counsel of appellant uploaded written submission on the portal. We carefully perused the record hearing arguments of representatives of the respective parties. 5. Placing reliance upon M/s Vishal Steel Supplier v. State of U.P., (2024) 164 taxmann.com 609; Excide Industries Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-1, State Tax (2024) 164 taxmann.com 579; AA Plastics Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (2024) 165 taxmann.com 564; M/s Midtown Associates v. Additional Commissioner-WT No. 433 of 2020 decided on 09.05.2024 (Allahabad HC); M/s Falguni Steels v. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC:11990; Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1969) 2 (SCC 627); Assistant Commissioner (ST) vs. Satyam Shivam Pape....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the reason of detention as discrepancies of 150 km distance from destination and intrusion of vehicle in Uttar Pradesh without any necessity which created doubt that taxable goods might have been transported to some other recipient in Uttar Pradesh. 8. The appellant supplier submitted reply before Proper Officer / Adjudicating Authority stating that the longer route had been opted only to avoid the area of difficult terrain creating difficulty to drive heavy loaded commercial vehicles and also for safety measures. 9. Disbelieving the version of appellant mentioned in reply the Proper Officer / Adjudicating Authority passed order on 16.06.2025 imposing penalty of Rs. 6,48,366 (IGST) which was paid under protest by appellant; so as to r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with commercial heavy vehicle. 13. Like old law in VAT, no provision is encompassed under GST Act/Rules to declare the route for transportation of goods. Complying such provisions the route has not been disclosed in the documents generated to transport the goods by appellant. If statute does not require to disclose any specific route and diversion of route to avoid complex situation to be arisen in hilly area opting longer route does not attract the situation to imagine that the appellant would have intended to evade the tax. 14. In M/s Om Prakash Kuldeep Kumar v. Additional Commissioner Gr. II (2023) 155 taxmann.com 249 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court clarified the distinction between the historical VAT era and the modern GST era. The H....