Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ayann Traders Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad high court)
Appeal Number : Write Tax No. 1319 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 27/02/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Ayann Traders Vs State of U.P. And 3 Others (Allahabad high court)

 It is a case where taxing authorities, after intercepting the goods of the petitioner on 18.04.2018, had detained the same and issued notice to both the selling and purchasing dealer. When no reply was filed, a seizure order was passed imposing 100% penalty, tax and cess aggregating Rs.63,56,280/-. It is admitted to both the parties that E-Way Bill was generated on 08.04.2018 wherein vehicle No.NL01N/6504 was mentioned and the name of the transporter was mentioned as M/s Bombay Kandla Transport Pvt. Ltd. for transporting the goods to Meghalaya. At the time of interception of goods, the driver had only produced tax invoice and transporter bill (bility).

From the findings recorded by the taxing authorities it is clearly evident that vehicle no.NL01N/6504 was not only used by Bombay Kandla Transport (P) Ltd. through which goods were sent by the petitioner-dealer, but also by Bombay Kolkata Logistics for sending fruits and vegetable to Panchkula and by Delhi Hemkunt Logistics for sending rice to Darbhanga (Bihar). Once, the vehicle was not available on 08.04.2018 and was used for transporting fruits and vegetable and its journey commenced on 07.04.2018, the case set up by the petitioner cannot be accepted and has rightly been denied by the authorities.

From the averment made in the writ petition, it is clear that the goods were sent on 07.04.2018 to West Bengal through the vehicle in question and thereafter, on 12.04.2018 to Darbhanga (Bihar). Filling the details of the vehicle and transporter in Part-B of Form GST EWB-01 completely belie the story set up by the petitioner before the authorities.

Moreover, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that Darbhanga Dealer to whom it is alleged that rice was sent had denied such transaction as the firm having already closed down two months prior to the transactions which corroborates the facts that through tax invoice and E-Way Bill generated on 08.04.2018, the dealer has made several transactions and evaded tax. The Chart given in para 7 of the counter affidavit reflects movement of the vehicle through various Toll Plazas on relevant dates and is a establishment of fact that number of trips were made from Delhi to other places through one and the same document and also through one and the same vehicle.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031