Anish Transport Company Vs State of U.P. and 2 others (Allahabad High Court)
The petitioner, a proprietorship firm registered under GST and engaged in transporting goods, challenged an appellate order dated 26 October 2021. The firm transported goods from Dehradun to Delhi, and during transit on 25 September 2020, the vehicle was intercepted at Meerut. Physical verification on 26 September 2020 revealed discrepancies: 138 cartons containing 16,295 boxes were found, whereas the e-way bill mentioned 167 cartons with 19,685 boxes. Based on this shortfall, the goods and vehicle were seized, and a detention order was issued. A show cause notice followed, culminating in an order under section 129(3) of the GST Act on 9 October 2020. The goods were subsequently released on 16 October 2020 upon payment of an amount equal to market price, with the release order noting that the goods belonged to the consignor as per invoices.
The petitioner argued that once the owner of the goods was identified and the goods were released accordingly, no adverse inference could be drawn against the transporter. It was submitted that the authorities had not recorded any finding that the transporter intended to evade tax or was engaged in buying or selling goods. The goods were accompanied by all required documents, and the discrepancy resulted from human error in loading during the night. The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the appellate authority.
