Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : WRIT - C No. - 22285 of 2019
Date of Judgement/Order : 06/09/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.

Citykart Retail Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P (Allahabad High Court)

At the time of inspection, the department found that the e-way bill was incomplete as Part-B of the e-way bill was not available. Consequently, the vehicle in question was detained for verification. Subsequently, the mobile squad seized the goods and issued a show cause notice to the petitioner (Annexure no.5). The petitioner gave a reply to the said show cause notice explaining that the vehicle number through which the goods were being transported was DL01M6498, however, on account of some technical error, the vehicle number could not be registered, as such, the vehicle number was not reflected in Part-B of the e-way bill which led to the seizure of the goods.

Counsel for the petitioner argues that the error in not filling the form in part B of the e-way bill was on account of the technical glitch which itself was realized by the department who had issued the Circular dated 18.03.2018. In the light of the said, he argues that there was no ill motive or intent for avoiding the payment of duty. He further argues that in any case there is no finding recorded against the petitioner of there being any intent to avoid the payment of duty.

Only allegation levelled against the petitioner leading to seizure of the goods was that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled up. There is no allegation that the goods being transported were being transported without payment of tax. The explanation offered by the petitioner for not filling the Part-B of e-way bill, is clearly supported by the Circulars issued by the Ministry of Finance wherein the problem arising in filling the part-B of e-way bill was noticed and advisories were issued.

In the present case, prima-facie no intent to evade the duty can be ascertained, only on the allegation that Part-B of the e-way bill was not filled, more so, in view of the fact that the vehicle in which the goods were being transported on a Delhi number, the said issue being decided in the judgment dated 13.04.2018 in the case of VSL Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) covers the issue raised in the present case also, as such, for the reasoning recorded above, the impugned order dated 18.04.2018 and the appellate order dated 14.05.2019 are set aside.

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


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 *

Search Post by Date
July 2024