Samira Enterprises Vs State of U P And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court held that invocation of provisions of section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act not justified when consignor with tax invoice and e-way bill claim himself to be the owner of the goods.
Facts- The petitioner is a registered dealer in MS scrape based at Delhi. She submits that in the normal course of business, the petitioner sold MS scrape to M/s Himgiri Ispat Pvt. Ltd. The said goods was accompanying with proper documents i.e. tax invoice as well as E-way Bill. The goods, during its onward journey was intercepted on 17.11.2021 at Muzaffar nagar, UP by the respondent no. 3 and thereafter GST MOV- 1 and 2 was issued and the goods were detained. Thereafter, the order dated 30.11.2021 was passed imposing tax as well as penalty upon the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved to the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the impugned order without considering the matter in proper perspective.
Conclusion- This Court in the case of M/s Riya Trader has held as that once the documents clearly establish the name of the consignor, who is a registered dealer in the State, the proceedings should have been initiated against the owner of the firm instead of the driver, so as to enable him to respond to the notice. In any case, once from the facts on record, which have gone undisputed, the petitioner, who is consignor in the invoice and e-Way Bill, claims himself to be the owner of the goods, the provisions of Section 129(1)(b) of the Act could not be invoked for imposing penalty.
