TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 04.11.2023, only 1225 kg of aluminium waste and scraps having value of Rs. 161700/- had to be supplied from Mirzapur to Jaunpur. The goods and vehicle were taken into custody to initiate the proceeding of seizure and imposing tax and penalty under section 129 of GST Act. 2. The Show Cause Notice was issued to taxpayer / appellant. The taxpayer / appellant submitted written reply stating the facts that the copper scraps had been loaded by labourers due to bona fide mistake regarding description of goods. Along with reply the fresh Tax Invoice no. 67 dated 05.11.2023 and E-way Bill no. 481384702784, generated on 05.11.2023 at 01:29 PM, was submitted by appellant before Proper Officer / Adjudicating Authority. The appellant expressed willingness to deposit required tax and penalty at the very moment. The Adjudicating Authority imposed total Rs. 225692/- as tax and penalty passing order on 05.11.2023. The adjudicating authority observed that the copper scrap in bags had been transported in vehicle covering with loose aluminium scrap to evade the tax. He further observed that it was quite probable that the supplier would have supplied the goods of same nature on more than one occas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant has stated that the copper scrap in bags had been loaded by labourers due to bona fide mistake and just after noticing such facts a fresh invoice and E-way Bill got generated. The learned representative of respondent Shri Manav Kumar Vikas contended that the appellant is habitual tax evader. He referred the facts of APL/15/VRN/2026 pending before this Tribunal and fixed for final order today. In such referred appeal, the vehicle carrying the goods of appellant V.K. Brothers lacked invoice and E-way Bill at the time of interception but appellant generated invoice and E-way Bill to show the bona fide at later stage. Thus, the record reveals that the appellant has been indulged to supply the goods either without documents or with mismatched documents. Such act of appellant invites probabilities regarding his mala fide intention to evade the tax. Repetition of wrong by appellant yields sufficient basis to believe that the underway supply in question had been done with intention to evade the tax. The matters involved in present appeal and Appeal No. APL/15/VRN/2026 show the situation that the appellant use to supply the goods illegally and after interception, he prepares th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner's vehicle carrying goods declared as aluminium scrap but physical inspection revealed that brand new aluminium sections were wrapped in protective plastic packaging rather than scrap. The E-way Bill valued the goods as scrap at Rs. 642600/- whereas the actual value of the brand-new aluminium sections (weighing 6300 kg) was estimated at Rs. 1102500/-. The Hon'ble Court held that an inspecting authority was fully justified in detaining goods when the misdescription in transport papers permits to an entirely different and higher value commodity. It was also observed by Hon'ble Court that portraying of higher value goods in the garb of lesser value goods mentioning in transit documents reflects a blatant attempt to evade GST. (viii). In M/s Bright Road Logistics vs State of Haryana and Others, CWP - 2490 - 2019 (O&M) (Punjab and Haryana High Court), decided on 09.08.2023, Hon'ble Division Bench held that detention and seizure of goods with vehicle was justified where mixed scrap had been transported without valid documents; ie, invoices and E-way Bill, etc. (ix). In Gulab Chand vs. Kudilal, AIR 1966 SC 1734 (5 Judges Bench), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the definit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but appellant invaded such mandate to satisfy his lust for wealth attempting to escape from payment of tax. The version of appellant regarding creation of confusion in the mind of labourers appears as illusory. 11. In M/s Jhansi Enterprises vs. State of UP (Writ Tax No. 10181 of 2019), 2024 AHC 37625, the petitioner had sold a consignment of TMT Bars (sariya) on March 19, 2019, to a trader of Orai vide Tax Invoice No. 167 and vehicle no. MP 16 H 1584 had been mentioned in the tax invoice to transport the goods. On the same day at 01:11 PM, the tax authorities of state of Uttar Pradesh intercepted the vehicle and subsequently at 03:59 PM issued an order for physical verification/inspection of the goods and documents u/s 68(3) of GST Act on the ground that neither E-way Bill nor any other documents such as tax invoice etc. were produced before him at the time of inspection. Thereafter, the documents were produced preparing/generating after the time of inspection. Issuing Show Cause Notice and considering reply of petitioner order was passed imposing tax and penalty. The appeal filed u/s 107 was dismissed. Such orders were challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y bill with a proper and reasonable explanation. Ergo, he has not been able to rebut the presumption of evasion of tax. 11. Mere furnishing of the documents subsequent to the interception cannot be a valid ground to show that there was no intention to evade tax. There must be some reasonable grounds to justify the non-production of documents at the proper time. 12. Furthermore, the judgments upon which the petitioner is relying are prior to April 2018, when there were actually some difficulties with the generation of e-way bill. But after April, 2018 those difficulties have been resolved and now there is no difficulty in generating and downloading the e-way bill. 13. The argument raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the vehicle was parked at the godown for unloading is not supported by the facts. The interception of the vehicle was in a place away from the godown and this entire argument is obviously an afterthought. Accordingly, the application of the section 129 (3) of the Act by the authorities is valid and just in law. 14. In light of the above, I am of the view that the petitioner herein has not complied with the ....