Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Rateria Laminators Pvt. Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 599 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order : 16/08/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Rateria Laminators Pvt.Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner Grade 2 And Another (Allahabad High Court)

Allahabad High Court held that passing of detention order without recording any findings with regard to the submissions made by the assessee is unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed.

Facts- The petitioner is a Company. The petitioner in its normal course of business made inward supply of B55HM0003NA G-LEX HDPE-2 HSN 3901.20.00 15 from GAIL, Auraiya U.P. The petitioner also made inward supply of similar item from GAIL Auraiya U.P. for which two invoices dated 6.3.2023 were prepared. For movement of goods from Auraiya Uttar Pradesh to Jalpaiguri, West Bengal two Eway Bills were generated having validity upto 12.3.2023. A GR was also prepared on the same day i.e. 6.3.2023 in which invoice numbers and Eway bills have specifically been mentioned. It is stated that after completing the formalities goods were in transit from Auraiya U.P. to Jalpaiguri, W.B. and on way the Driver of the Vehicle fell ill and there was also some break down of the vehicle, therefore onwards journey could not be continued to reach the destignation before 12.3.2023.

The Vehicle was intercepted by respondent no.2 on 13.3.2023 and Form GST MOV04 was prepared on 14.3.2023. Thereafter Form GST MOV01 was prepared on 23.3.2023 and consequently an order was passed on the same day that the goods in question are being carried without proper documents as E-way bills have expired. Thereafter on the same day From GST MOV 06 was prepared and subsequently respondent no.2 issued notice in From GST MOV 07 u/s. 129(3) of the UPGST Act proposing to impose penalty of Rs. 11,18,624/- u/s. 129(1)(a) of the Act and Rs. 36,66,606/- u/s. 129(1)(b) of the Act. An order u/s. 129 (3) of the Act was passed directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 11,18,624/- for release of goods.

Being aggrieved with the said order the petitioner preferred appeal which has been rejected vide order dated 18.4.2023. Hence the present writ petition.

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