TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the traffic blockage due to agitation, are taken into consideration, the State alone remains responsible for not providing smooth passage of traffic. The High Court has awarded costs to the writ petitioner in the sum of ₹ 10,000/- in relation to tax and penalty of ₹ 69,000/- that was sought to be imposed by the petitioner No.2. In the given circumstances, a further sum of ₹ 59,000/- is imposed on the petitioners toward costs, which shall be payable to the writ petitioner within four weeks from today - Petition dismissed. - Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21132/2021 - - - Dated:- 12-1-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY For Petitioner(s) Mr. P. Venkat R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The 2nd respondent merely states in the counter affidavit that there is clear evasion of tax and so he did not consider the said explanations. This is plainly arbitrary and illegal and violates Article 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 4.01.2020 up to 8.30 pm preventing the movement of auto trolley for otherwise the goods would have been delivered on that day itself. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner to pay ₹ 69,000/- by such conduct. 45. We deprecate the conduct of 2nd respondent in not even adverting to the response given by petitioner to the Form GST MOV-07 in Form GST MOV-09 and his deliberate intention to treat the validity of the expiry on the e-way bill as amounting to evasion of tax without any evidence of such evasion of tax by the petitioner. Having said so, the High Court has set aside the levy of tax and penalty of ₹ 69,000/- (Rupees Sixty-nine Thousand) while imposing costs of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand), payable by the petitioner No.2 to the writ petitioner within four weeks. The analysis and reasoning of the High Court commends to us, when it is noticed that the High Court has meticu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f costs imposed in this matter by the High Court. The High Court has awarded costs to the writ petitioner in the sum of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in relation to tax and penalty of ₹ 69,000/- (Rupees Sixty-nine Thousand) that was sought to be imposed by the petitioner No.2. In the given circumstances, a further sum of ₹ 59,000/- (Rupees Fifty-nine Thousand) is imposed on the petitioners toward costs, which shall be payable to the writ petitioner within four weeks from today. This would be over and above the sum of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) already awarded by the High Court. Having regard to the circumstances, we also make it clear that the State would be entitled to recover the amount of costs, aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
