TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shop of the buyer would be closed, the driver of auto trolley took the goods to his residence with a desire to deliver the goods on the next day. The following day 5.1.2020 being a Sunday, the attempt was made by the driver of the auto trolley to deliver them to the buyer on 6.1.2020 when it was detained at 12.35 pm by issuing detention notice dt.06.01.2020. It was the duty of 2nd respondent to consider the explanation offered by petitioner as to why the goods could not have been delivered during the validity of the e-way bill, and instead he is harping on the fact that the e-way bill is not extended even four (04) hours before the expiry or four (04) hours after the expiry, which is untenable - there was no material before the 2nd respondent to come to the conclusion that there was evasion of tax by the petitioner merely on account of lapsing of time mentioned in the e-way bill because even the 2nd respondent does not say that there was any evidence of attempt to sell the goods to somebody else on 06.01.2020. On account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill by petitioner or the auto trolley driver, no presumption can be drawn that there was an intention to evade ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ners and the auto trolley could not move forward or backward. Petitioner alleges that this continued till 08:30 p.m. and by that time, the shop of the buyer could be closed, and so the auto trolley driver took the trolley to his residence with the goods so as to deliver them on the next working day. 5. 04.01.2020 was a Saturday, and 5.1.2020 was a Sunday, and the next working day was 06.01.2020. 6. Petitioner contends that on 06.01.2020, the auto trolley was on its way for delivery of the paper to the buyer/consignee but it was detained by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Bowenpally-II, Circle, Begumpet Division (for short, 2nd respondent ) at Tadbund at 12:35 p.m.; and a Detention Notice in Form GST MOV-07 dt.06.01.2020 (Ex.P.4) was served alleging that the validity of the e-way bill had expired proposing to impose tax and penalty. 7. It was further alleged by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent unloaded the paper boxes at a private premises in the house of 2nd respondent s relative s at Marredpally, Secunderabad without tendering any acknowledgment of receipt of detention of the goods in his custody, and released the auto trolley by unloading the goods in such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 2nd respondent stating that he was authorized by the Joint Commissioner (ST), Begumpet Division to conduct vehicular checks; that three vehicles including the vehicle bearing No.TS 07 UF 1008 were stopped by him and the documents were checked and since the e-way bills were valid only up to 05.01.2020 12:00 a.m. and were not valid on 06.01.2020 when the checking was done by him, he was entitled to detain them; and that the drivers of the auto trolleys expressed ignorance of the expiry of the e-way bill. 15. The 2nd respondent further quoted Rule 138(10) of the GST Act, 2017 which extended the validity of an e-way bill for one additional day and contended that the distance from the destination was less than 100kms and so the e-way bill was valid only for an extra 24 hrs; that such extension can be made four hours before expiry or four hours after expiry, but the e-way bill of petitioner was not so extended. 16. He further contended that though there were three vehicles there was only one e-way bill mentioning the vehicle No.TS 07 UF 1008 and the numbers of the other two vehicles, viz., AP 09 Y 2935 and TS 13 UB 6441, were written manually on the e-way bill which the drive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reached the destination and delivered the paper boxes, the remaining three trolleys could not deliver the paper on 04.01.2020 due to CAA and NRC rallies at Bashierbagh, Hyderabad. It stated that they started on 06.01.2020 for delivery of goods before the expiry of the e-way bill period, and hence the detention notice issued is illegal and bad in law. 26. Petitioner further alleges in this reply-affidavit that the detention notice dt.06.01.2020 is signed by the Assistant Commissioner (C.T.O.), but, the first page of the detention notice mentions the 2nd respondent s name as the first person who intercepted it. 27. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent admitted that he did not sign the release order as he was on leave and there is no provision under the Act to sub-delegate the powers to the 2nd respondent. 28. It was also contended that the 2nd respondent s plea that petitioner has admitted the payment of tax and penalty is absurd, baseless and high-handed, and he did not look into the replies submitted by petitioner. It is stated that there is no document in which the petitioner had admitted liability to pay the tax and liability. It was also stated that the repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions of both sides. Consideration by the Court : 36. The admitted facts are that petitioner had dispatched goods on the auto trolley bearing No.TS 07 UF 1008 on 04.01.2020 and the driver of the auto trolley had in his possession tax invoice (Ex.P.2) dt.04.01.2020 as well as e-way bill (Ex.P.3) dt.04.01.2020, and that the distance to be traveled by the auto trolley was only 36 kms. 37. Petitioner alleges that the said auto trolley along with other auto trolleys started for delivery of the paper at 04:33p.m. on 04.01.2020 to the consignee, but on its way to Bashierbagh since there was a political rally opposing CAA and NRC by political parties, the roads were blocked and the traffic could not move forward or backward; that the driver of the said auto trolley waited till 08:30 p.m. on the road; by that time having realized that the shop of the buyer would be closed, the driver of auto trolley took the goods to his residence with a desire to deliver the goods on the next day. The following day 5.1.2020 being a Sunday, the attempt was made by the driver of the auto trolley to deliver them to the buyer on 6.1.2020 when it was detained at 12.35 pm by issuing detentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 14 of the Constitution of India, because there is no denial by the 2nd respondent of the traffic blockage at Basher Bagh due to the anti CAA and NRC agitation on 4.1.2020 up to 8.30 pm preventing the movement of auto trolley for otherwise the goods would have been delivered on that day itself. He also does not dispute that 04.01.2020 was a Saturday, 05.01.2020 was a Sunday and the next working day was only 06.01.2020. . 42. How the 2nd respondent could have drawn an inference that petitioner is evading tax merely because the e-way bill has expired is also nowhere explained in the counter-affidavit. In our considered opinion, there was no material before the 2nd respondent to come to the conclusion that there was evasion of tax by the petitioner merely on account of lapsing of time mentioned in the e-way bill because even the 2nd respondent does not say that there was any evidence of attempt to sell the goods to somebody else on 06.01.2020. On account of non-extension of the validity of the e-way bill by petitioner or the auto trolley driver, no presumption can be drawn that there was an intention to evade tax. 43. We are also unable to understand why the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
