Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2020 (9) TMI 1141 - HC - GSTDetention of vehicle - E-way bill did not mention correct details - the G.S.T. Tribunal has not been constituted so far by the Central Government for the State of Uttar Pradesh - Section 129 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - Admittedly in the facts of the present case the petitioner did accept that the e-way bill with the vehicle did not contain correct description with regard to movement of goods. Another e-way bill (though not available with the vehicle at the time of detention) has also been produced along with details of job work executed in favour of the petitioner. The tax invoice which has been relied upon for determining the liability of tax admittedly is of the year 2018 and it is not the case of the Department that such amount of tax was not paid at the time when the machine was purchased in the year 2018 itself. It is also not the case of the Department that this machine has been sold to anybody. Perusal of the orders passed would clearly go to show that the claim set up by the assessee with regard to transportation of machine for performance of job work has not been examined on merits. There is also no consideration or finding in the orders passed by the authority which may suggest that this transportation of machine was for any other purpose. The proper Officer in terms of the scheme was expected to examine the specific defence set up by the petitioner and consequently determine the liability of tax payable by the petitioner. It is only after determining the liability to pay tax that the liability to pay penalty could be determined. This exercise does not appear to have been performed by the proper Officer in the manner expected by it in accordance with the Act. Petitioner s claim that no liability to pay tax had arisen till the time when the machine was being transported is also required to be examined. Such factual issues require proper determination at the level of the proper Officer at the first instance. The proper Officer is requested to examine such defence of the petitioner and thereafter determine the liability if any in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not determined the liability of the petitioner on merits and all issues of fact are left open to be examined by the proper Officer at the first instance - petition allowed by way of remand.
|