TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It also does not dispute that those documents were found present on the vehicle in question at the time of its first detention. It is further not in dispute that the present petitioner claims to be the owner of the goods. Accordingly, petitioner may remain liable to pay security in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. The coordinate bench in M/s Margo Brush India [ 2023 (1) TMI 1237 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ] held that levy of penalty under Section 129(1)(b) of the Act was not called for and could not be justified as Section 129(1)(a) of the Act provides that where owner of the goods comes forward for payment of penalty, the amount has to be two hundred per cent of the tax payable, whereas, in the case in hand, the penalty has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. PB11- CQ-2981. Goods are thus claimed to have dispatched from Kanpur to Ludhiana in State of Punjab. 5. During the course of such transportation, the goods were detained by respondent No.2 on 04.1.2023. They were detained upon statement of the driver of the truck being recorded. It does not appear to be the case of the revenue that the tax invoice and E-way bill relied by the petitioner were not produced by the driver of the truck at the time of detention of the goods. Rather, it appears to be admitted case, such documents were produced at the time of first interception. However, the revenue authorities entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the consignee. Reference has been made to the tax invoice dated 02.1.2023 and E-way bil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion to falsify the genuineness of the tax invoice and the E-way bill claimed by the petitioner. It also does not dispute that those documents were found present on the vehicle in question at the time of its first detention. It is further not in dispute that the present petitioner claims to be the owner of the goods. Accordingly, petitioner may remain liable to pay security in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. 9. The coordinate bench in M/s Margo Brush India (supra), observed as under: 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order impugned dated October 7, 2022 deserves to be set aside for the reason that the consignors and consignees are p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be invoked for imposing penalty. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated December 15, 2022 passed by the respondent no. 2, is set aside giving him the liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. We find ourselves in full agreement with the view expressed by the coordinate bench in the aforementioned two decisions. 12. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed . The impugned order MOV-09 dated 16.1.2023 is set aside. Matter is remitted to the respondent No. 2 to pass fresh order within a period of two weeks from today treating the petitioner to be eligible to the benefit of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
