Sleevco Traders through Its Proprietor Shri Alok Gupta Vs Additional Commissioner Grade- 2 (Appeal) Fifth, Commercial Tax and another (Allahabad High Court)
Facts- The petitioner is a registered proprietorship concerned and engaged in the business of purchase and sale of PVC Resin. During course of business a purchase order was received from K.R. Industries, Sandila, U.P. for supply of PVC Resin. In turn, the petitioner placed its purchase order to SAFE Climber, Thane, Maharastra, who send the goods through Invoice No. SC/1994 19-20 dated 31.1.2020, mentioning the name of the petitioner under the head of buyer and consigned to K.R. Industries, Sandila (U.P.) on the tax invoice.
Further the e-way bill was also generated where the sender’s name has been mentioned as SAFE Climber and name of the purchaser i.e. petitioner has been mentioned and ship to K.R. Industries (Sandila). The said e-way bill was valid for a period up to 15.2.2020 along with bill builty of New Sagar Indore Transport Corporation, the contract was also accompanying. The said consignment was onward journey from Maharastra to Sandila, (U.P.) through Vehicle no. MP 09 HH9980. After reaching the said goods in the State of U.P., the same was intercepted by Mobile Squad at Kanpur and detained the vehicle on 7.2.2020. On detention of goods, certain documents were shown i.e. tax invoice of the petitioner, builty and e-way bill but after the detention, show cause notice was issued u/s. 129 (3) for determining the tax and penalty in respect of release of the goods and vehicle in Form GST-MOV-07 dated 7.2.2020. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice but the respondents without considering the same, passed the order dated 8.2.2020 demanding the petitioner to deposit the tax and penalty as determined. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.76,6656/- for release of the goods as well as the vehicle. Against the order of tax and penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 5.2.2020. Hence the present petition.
Conclusion- The Revenue has neither disputed the e-way bill generated by Maharashtra party nor the goods in question were found different than mentioned in the e-way bill of the Maharashtra party and the tax invoices issued by the petitioner. Some difference of value has been mentioned which occurs only on charges of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. on the tax invoice issued by the petitioner cannot suggest any contravention of the provisions of the Act read with Rule 138 A of G.S.T. Rules. Once the valid document i.e. e-way bill was accompanying with the goods, the authorities ought to have release the vehicle.
Held that that there is neither any intention to evade the payment of tax nor any fault nor any contravention of the Act as all valid documents were accompanying with the goods as required under the Act, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot sustain and are hereby quashed.
Read SC Judgment: SC Confirms Allahabad HC Verdict on GST Goods Detention: Sleevco Traders Case
