Order Date – 02 February 2023

Parties: M/S S.R. Sales Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s S.R. Sales, is the consignee of bringing the goods through the transporter from State of Karnataka to the State of U.P. On a consignment the truck which was bringing the goods was changed twice at Amrawati and thereafter at Nagpur.
• The goods which were in movement were intercepted on 22.10.2018 and penalty was imposed alleging that the Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036 had already brought the goods into the State of U.P. and this was the second shipment by the consignee bringing in the goods into the State of U.P. using Truck No. UP-78CN/4605.

Issue –

• Whether the penalty imposed is in order?

Order –

• The single bench of Hon’ble High Court held that there is no material on record to demonstrate that goods were brought twice by the petitioner. The e-way bill generated on 10.10.2018 clearly reflects that those goods originated from Birur and the transporter changed the truck at Amrawati and thereafter at Nagpur.
• The presumption drawn by both the authorities cannot be accepted without there being any material on record that earlier the petitioner had brought the goods from Nagpur through Truck No. U.P.-78DT/6036.
• The proceedings has been initiated solely on the basis of presumption that goods having been brought into the State using two different vehicles by same e-way bill. Once, it was found that the vehicle was carrying the required documents along with the e-way bill, no question arose for taking some other view.

Read more updates on Indirect tax….