Case Law Details
Khan Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Allahabad High Court held that proceedings under section 129(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is bad when the owner of the goods comes forward to pay the penalty.
Facts- The petitioner was a registered dealer under the GST Act having GSTIN 09DHGPK6236N3ZP. (Cancelled on 20.9.2020). At the time of transaction the petitoner was having the said GSTIN. In the normal course of business the petitioner purchases Supara (Areca Nuts) from a registered dealer situated at Gurgaon. For the said transaction the seller issued Tax Invoice No. 7, E-Waybill and GR No.28 dated 27.9.2020. The goods were being transported from Gurgaon, Haryana to Robertsganj, U.P. The goods were interceptred by respondent no.2; statement of the driver was taken on MOV 01 dated 30.9.2020 and physical verification of the goods was also done in MOV 04 dated 5.10.2020. Thereafter MOV 06 was issued detaining the goods.
A notice u/s. 129(3) of the GST Act was issued in MOV 07 dated 5.10.2020. A supplementary notice was also issued on 17.10.2020 in which the stand was taken that the product in question was not Arecanut/Betul Nut but there was processed Betul Nut and thereafter MOV 09 dated 21.10.2020 was issued. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed GST APL 01 on 29.10.2020 before respondent no.1 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.8.2021. Hence the present writ petition.
Conclusion- In the case in hand during the validity of the first e-waybill the subsequent e-waybill was generated and submitted before the detention authority, e. before the expiry of earlier e-way bill, therefore the seizure cannot be justified.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
