TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted by the dealer through stock transfer from its unit at Gautam Buddha Nagar to its sale depot at Agra. The bilty which is the document of the transporter mentions the vehicle number as HR-73/6755. From perusal of the e-way bill which has been brought on record, it is clear that the vehicle number has been mentioned as UP-13T/6755. It is apparently clear that mistake is as far as the registration of the vehicle in a particular State and in place of HR-73, UP-13T has been mentioned in the e-way bill, while number of the vehicle 6755 is same. As there is no dispute to the fact that it is a case of stock transfer and there is no intention on the part of dealer to evade any tax, the minor discrepancy as to the registration of vehicle in S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of manufacturing and sale of aerated water, fruit juice based drinks etc. The dealer was making a stock transfer from its unit at Gautam Buddha Nagar, Greater NOIDA depot to a sale depot at Kuberpur, Agra. The goods were being shifted through Truck No. HR-73/6755 which was accompanying delivery challan, e-way bill and bilty on 10.06.2018. The mobile squad on 10.06.2018 intercepted the goods and detained the vehicle in question along with the goods on the premise that in the e-way bill the vehicle number has been mentioned as UP-13T/6755. Detention order was passed on 11.06.2018. Thereafter, a penalty order under Section 129(3) of the Act of 2017 was passed imposing a tax of Rs.1,86,834/- and penalty of the same amount, totaling Rs.3,73, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the year 2018 issued by the Commissioner provides that in case of any mistake in entering details of the transporter in the e-way bill, one or two digit can be ignored by the taxing authorities, but where the entire digit as has been entered in the e-way bill is not matching with the vehicle in transit, the explanation afforded by the dealer cannot be accepted. He further contends that the registration number of vehicle through which the goods were in transit was HR-73/6755, while the number entered in the e-way bill was UP-13T/6755. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The sole controversy engaging the attention of the Court is as to whether the wrong mention of number of Vehicle No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
