TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een dispatched from the said place. The statement of the driver recorded disclosed that goods were loaded from Mayapuri, Delhi, which is 18 kms. away from Rajeev Nagar. On physical verification of the premises of M/s. Sunshine Overseas, it is clear that no business transaction was being done from that place and the GST registration was suspended on 04.05.2022. The selling dealer till date has not responded to the notice of the taxing authorities nor has come forward to state that goods were sent by him through the e-way bill alleged to have been generated from the portal from the address mentioned therein. The taxing authorities had also scrutinized the records of the selling dealer for the assessment year 2021-22 and found that it was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guaranteed batteries. On 25.04.2022, petitioner no. 2 placed an order for purchase of scrap batteries of around 15,150 kgs. to M/s. Sunshine Overseas, New Delhi. The goods were dispatched by the seller firm, M/s. Sunshine Overseas, New Delhi through Haridwar Roadways, Vehicle No. UP 12 BT 7179, along with an e-way bill and other accompanying documents. On 26.04.2022, goods were intercepted by the mobile squad. On 29.04.2022, detention order was passed in form GST-MOV-06 and notices were issued to the seller firm as well as the buyer. An inquiry was conducted by the taxing authorities about the details of the seller, and it was found that firm was bogus and its registration was suspended on 04.05.2022. On 14.05.2022, a penalty order was p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to him, the e-way bill declared goods to be loaded from Rajeev Nagar, Delhi. A physical inspection conducted at the business place of the selling dealer, M/s. Sunshine Overseas, it was found that the firm was not existing and its registration was suspended by the adjudicating authorities. According to him, notices were issued by respondent no. 4 to both the selling dealer as well as the purchasing dealer in MOV-7/DRC-01 on 29.04.2022 but no reply was submitted within 7 days. The purchasing dealer sought five days' extra time but that too expired on 11.05.2022 and no reply was submitted, thus, respondent no. 4 proceeded to pass the order imposing penalty. According to learned counsel, goods which were sent were a part of bogus tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records of the selling dealer for the assessment year 2021-22 and found that it was not indulging in any sale and purchase and bogus transactions were only made for claiming ITC. The Assistant Commissioner/ respondent no. 4 had recorded categorical finding that no reply has been given disclosing the banking transaction made between the parties. Once, it is found that selling dealer was bogus firm, the goods carrying the e-way bill generated by such firm is of no benefit to the petitioners as the same has been used for transiting the goods from non bona fide dealer from undisclosed place. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that no interference is required in the orders passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4. Writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
