A Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court has recently dismissed the writ petition against the Goods and Services Tax (GST) notice and order under Section 129(3) of the U P Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for transporting goods 10 days after the generation of e-way bill.
The petitioner before this Court is a registered dealer and had sold 300 bags of Pan Masala valued at Rs. 33,81,000/- to a dealer at Meghalaya. A tax invoice was generated on 08.04.2018 under the Integrated Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) charging 28% IGST and 60% Cess on the transaction.
According to the petitioner, the goods were handed over to transporter M/s Bombay Kandla Transport Pvt. Ltd. for transporting the goods to Meghalaya through Truck No.NL01N/6504 and an E-Way bill was generated on 08.04.2018 itself. The transporter, on the same day, also issued a bill for transporting the goods to Meghalaya.
Aggrieved by the seizure order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was dismissed by the order impugned, hence, this writ petition.
The counsel for the petitioner, Rahul Agarwal submitted that the taxing authorities were wrong to pass the order impugned as the goods, which were being transported, were carrying all necessary documents i.e. tax invoice and E-way Bill. According to him, the E-Way Bill was generated on 08.04.2018 itself and the vehicle number was mentioned.
On the other hand, Standing Counsel Anant Kumar Tiwari, while opposing writ petition submitted that the E-Way Bill, which was generated on 08.04.2018, specifically mentioned the vehicle number. Further, the transporter bill also mentioned the vehicle number, which means that transit of goods had taken place. At the time of interception of goods, the driver had only produced tax invoice and transporter bill (bili ty).
The Single Bench of Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed that there has been a complete misuse of statutory provision of the Act and Rules by the dealer.
It was thus held, while dismissing the petition, that the inference drawn by the taxing authorities after interception of goods needs no interference by the Court.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
