2018 (4) TMI 1074 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 214 (All.) – Seizure of goods with vehicle – absence of Transit Declaration Form – interstate movement of goods through UP – penalty – Held that: – It is clear that the goods have been detained, seized and penalty has been imposed merely because of TDF was absent and the proper officer was himself not satisfied as to the intention to evade tax being present in the facts of the case – There is nothing to dispute the claim made by the assessee that it was effecting the stock transfer of goods from Chennai to Dehradun and therefore, the goods were only passing through the State of U.P. – There is no allegation or intention on the part of the assessee to unload the goods within the State of U.P. – seizure and penalty not sustainable – petition allowed. – Writ Tax No. – 799 of 2017 Dated:- 4-12-2017 – BHARATI SAPRU AND SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, JJ. For the Petitioner: Shri Shubham Agrawal, Advocate and Shri Lokesh Mittal, Advoca
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
and goods receipts. The said goods entered the State of U.P. on 15.11.2017 when the same were detained by the respondent no.4 on the solitary allegation of absence of Transit Declaration Form (hereinafter referred to as the 'TDF'). However, no defect was noticed or alleged with respect to the Tax Invoice and the Goods Receipt and the facts disclosed therein. The petitioner further alleges that it downloaded the TDF on the same day i.e. on 15.11.2017 (A copy of the same has also been annexed with the writ petition) and filed its reply along with the TDF but the goods were seized on 16.11.2017. Subsequently, a penalty notice was also issued to the petitioner in response to which the petitioner again reiterated his stand of the goods being transported from Chennai to Dehradun by way of stock transfer against valid Tax Invoice, Goods Receipt and also it relied on the TDF downloaded by it. By the impugned penalty order dated 23.11.2017, the penalty has been imposed solely for reaso
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
enalty in reply to the penalty notice. However, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the TDF was downloaded by the petitioner on 15.11.2017 at 10.39 pm. Also he is unable to show from the penalty order how the respondent no.4 has inferred the intention to evade tax. It is clear that the goods have been detained, seized and penalty has been imposed merely because of TDF was absent and the proper officer was himself not satisfied as to the intention to evade tax being present in the facts of the case. There is nothing to dispute the claim made by the assessee that it was effecting the stock transfer of goods from Chennai to Dehradun and therefore, the goods were only passing through the State of U.P.. There is no allegation or intention on the part of the assessee to unload the goods within the State of U.P. In view of facts, we find that the seizure order as also the penalty order are wholly unsustainable and are hereby quashed. The goods along with the truck may be r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =