Shakuntalam Associates Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal)-V (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court considered a challenge by M/S Shakuntalam Associates to an order dated 30.04.2021 and an appellate order dated 23.10.2021 arising from detention and seizure of goods under section 129(3) of the GST Act. The petitioner contended that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Delhi and were accompanied by the requisite tax invoice, e-way bill, bilty and other documents, but the transporter’s name was not mentioned on the e-way bill. The goods were consequently detained and seized. According to the petitioner, the truck driver had stated that the goods were going to Rajendra Nagar, Pillar No. 171, Ghaziabad, but the actual movement involved the transporter’s godown at Chikamberpur, Delhi, from where the fully loaded vehicle was to be transported to Transport Nagar, Alipur, Delhi.
The petitioner further submitted that the tax invoice and GR specifically mentioned Chikamberpur, Delhi as the destination and that the truck number and other particulars were correctly reflected in the e-way bill.It was therefore argued that the omission of the transporter’s name was merely technical and did not establish any intention to evade payment of tax. The respondents supported the impugned orders, contending that the transporter’s name had not been disclosed and that the driver had initially stated that the goods were going to Ghaziabad. On examination of the record, the Court found that the goods were transported from Delhi to Delhi against tax invoice, e-way bill and other documents. Although the transporter’s name was absent from the e-way bill, the truck number and all other details were mentioned.
