GST
TRT-2025-
Allahabad High Court
Date:-04-09-23
In:-
Issue Favourable to Tax Payer ?:-
Order Date – 04 September 2023
Parties: M/S Khan Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner And Another
Facts –
- The Petitioner, M/S Khan Enterprises, was transporting goods from Gurgaon, Haryana to Robertsganj, U.P. The goods were intercepted and Thereafter detained in MOV 04 dated 5.10.2020.
- A supplementary notice was also issued on 17.10.2020 alleging that the product in question was not Arecanut/Betul Nut but there was processed Betul Nut.
- Being aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal.
Issue –
- Whether the detention of goods is valid?
Order –
- The Single Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that in the case in hand during the validity of the first e-waybill the subsequent e-waybill was generated and submitted before the detention authority, i.e. before the expiry of earlier e-way bill, therefore the seizure cannot be justified as held in the case of M/s Sleevco Traders through Its Proprietor Shri Alok Gupta vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) Fifth, Commercial Tax and another.
- On perusal of the show cause notices no reason or material has been brought on record even before this Court as to show that some expert opinion was taken or some laboratory examination was being done or any other supporting documents. In absence of any of the above mentioned documents which are relevant materials, the assessing authorities below were not justified in passing the impugned orders.
- From a perusal of the MOV 04 dated 5.10.2020 it is evidently clear that after physical verification goods were found as per disclosed documents and in absence of any justification, upto this Court the product as treated as different as disclosed by the Revenue cannot be accepted, therefore, the action for seizure/ detention, demand of levy of penalty is vitiated.
- The penalty has been levied to the tune of 200% of the value of the goods. It was held in the case of M/s Riya Traders and in M/s Margo Brush India the Division Bench of this Court has held that proceedings under section 129(1)(b) is bad when the owner of the goods comes forward to pay the penalty.
- Hence the impugned order is set aside and writ petition is allowed.
Download Case Law
