TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case are that the 2nd petitioner was carrying certain gold ornaments in a train from Thrissur to Alleppy. He was initially intercepted by the officials attached to the Railway Protection Force and the 2nd petitioner was able to only shown certain documents on his mobile phone, which according to the petitioners, suggest that the gold ornaments were being carried in a valid manner and in accordance with all the requirements of the CGST/SGST Acts and the Rules made thereunder. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 2 nd petitioner had forgotten to hand over about 100 gms of gold, which was being carried in his pocket, cannot be accepted, at least at this stage. The fact that there was discrepancy i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Railway Protection Force. Thereafter, by about 05.55 pm, the 1st petitioner reportedly brought certain documents, which according to the 1st petitioner were sufficient to establish that the gold was being bona fide transported with full compliance of the GST laws. The railway police, however, entrusted the matter with the GST Department. It is the case of the petitioners that, by the time, the GST officials had intercepted the goods, the goods were having every document necessary to prove that they were being transported in full compliance with the GST laws. It is submitted that notwithstanding the above and completely ignoring the documents available with the petitioners, the 2nd respondent initiated and concluded proceedings under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itself is sufficient to prove that the proceedings under Section 130 of the CGST/SGST Acts was completely warranted as there was clear attempt to evade payment of tax. It is submitted that the subsequent explanation offered by the 2nd petitioner that he had forgotten to handover about 100 gms of gold, which he was carrying in his pocket, is nothing but an afterthought and is an attempt to ensure that the quantity of goods seized by the railway police and which was subsequently the subject matter of proceedings under the CGST/SGST Acts, completely tallys with the documents stated to have been produced later by the 1 st petitioner before the authorities. It is submitted that the there is nothing to show that the discrepancy was not on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner had produced certain documents, which according to the petitioners, are sufficient to carry gold in the manner carried by the 2nd petitioner. However, there is no satisfactory explanation for the fact that there was a discrepancy in the quantity mentioned in the documents produced by the 1 st petitioner in the evening before the Tax authorities and the quantity actually recovered from the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the 2 nd petitioner had forgotten to hand over about 100 gms of gold, which was being carried in his pocket, cannot be accepted, at least at this stage. The fact that there was discrepancy in the quantity in the documents stated to have been produced and the quantit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
