9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 passed by Additional Commissioner, SGST, Grade -II, (Appeal -III), Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, respondent no. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship concerned having its office at Krishna Nagar, East Delhi 110051, having GSTIN No. 07AKFPRF921G1Z2 and engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of furniture. The petitioner in the normal course of its business has sold the goods to Lotus Herbal Private Limited, B-9 Section 58, NOIDA on 21.11.2022 to which tax invoice, G.R. were generated but e-way bill could not be generated due to some technical error. He submits that since the purchaser of the goods was in dire need of the goods, therefore, the goods were being transported imm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter the same was uploaded on the website with the endorsement that 'documents are not ok', and when the said fact was came to the notice of the petitioner, the petitioner immediately generated the e-way bill. He submits that in the event, the goods were not intercepted, the petitioner would have been succeeded in its attempt to avoid the legitimate tax. 6. In support of his arguments, learned ACSC has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Akhilesh Traders Vs. State of UP and others (Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC: 29040). 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 8. Admittedly, the goods were intercepted in the evening of 22.11.2022 and at the time of interception the e-w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.7.2019 was produced, therefore, the goods were detained, however before the seizure order could be passed and after issuance of show cause notice, the E-way bill in respect of tax invoice no. 22 dated 12.7.2019 was produced, in which no discrepancy was pointed out by any of the respondent authorities. The only ground for detention being taken by the respondent authority is that once the goods in question was not accompanying with proper documents, there was intention to avoid the payment of tax. 11.... 12... 13... 14... 15. However, in the present case, the consignment of two different dealers were loaded in the vehicle and two separate tax invoices i.e. tax invoice no. 21 dated 12.7.2019 and tax invoice no. 22 dated 12.7.2019 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
