Kitchen Equipments Manufacturing Co Vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 (Appeal) And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Summary: The Allahabad High Court considered a writ petition filed by Kitchen Equipments Manufacturing Co challenging orders dated 19.03.2023 and 14.08.2023 passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The petitioner, a firm registered under the UPGST Act and engaged in manufacture and supply of kitchen equipment, had dispatched goods from Ghaziabad to the AAHAR International Food & Hospitality Fair at Pragati Maidan, New Delhi through a delivery challan. After conclusion of the exhibition, the goods were returned from Pragati Maidan, New Delhi to the petitioner’s place of business. During interception at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, the authorities noticed that the e-way bill mentioned Ghaziabad as the place of loading instead of New Delhi.
The goods were detained and were subsequently released after the petitioner paid tax and penalty under protest. The petitioner explained that the discrepancy was caused by inadvertence or human error and contended that the goods were accompanied by genuine documents, including delivery challans, e-way bill and material entry/exit slips issued in connection with the exhibition. The petitioner also relied upon the decisions in Vacmet India Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeal) and Shyam Sel and Power Ltd. v. State of U.P., submitting that no authority had recorded an intention to evade payment of tax. The Revenue contended that the incorrect place of dispatch had been intentionally shown as Ghaziabad instead of New Delhi and that the petitioner would otherwise have succeeded in avoiding payment of tax. The Court found that the goods had admittedly been dispatched with genuine documents for display at the exhibition and, upon return, were again accompanied by the relevant delivery challan, exit material slip and e-way bill. The Court treated the incorrect place of dispatch as a technical error.
