2018 (12) TMI 139 – KERALA HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods – mismatch between the delivery challan and the e-way bill – Held that:- The Department's demand on the petitioner to comply with Section 129(1)(a) cannot be faulted.
–
At any rate, the Department's insisting on both the penalty and tax covering all the set-top boxes cannot be sustained. To be specific, the petitioner has already shown in the delivery challan 200 set-top boxes and mentioned its value as well. So for the remaining boxes, that is 600, the cost was not reflected. – Subject to further adjudication of the issue before the State Tax Officer, the petitioner could provide a bank guarantee and personal bond under Section 129(1)(a) for the amount to be confined to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on undisputed, we may refer to the discrepancy the ASTO has pointed out justifying the detention. The authority has found a mismatch between the delivery challan and the e-way bill. The value of goods noted in the e-way bill is ₹ 10,04,888/-, whereas in the delivery challan, it is 3,20,000/-. 3. The petitioner's defence, as now urged through its counsel, is that the e-way bill has correctly reflected the value of the goods. But in the delivery challan, the set-top boxes were shown in two lots. The first lot comprises 200 boxes, and the value was shown as ₹ 3,20,000/-. Though the petitioner mentioned the second lot as 600 boxes, the value was shown as zero because of, what the learned counsel terms, a computer error. Once the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rcumstances, I hold that the Department's demand on the petitioner to comply with Section 129(1)(a) cannot be faulted. At any rate, the Department's insisting on both the penalty and tax covering all the set-top boxes cannot be sustained. To be specific, the petitioner has already shown in the delivery challan 200 set-top boxes and mentioned its value as well. So for the remaining boxes, that is 600, the cost was not reflected. Subject to further adjudication of the issue before the State Tax Officer, the petitioner could provide a bank guarantee and personal bond under Section 129(1)(a) for the amount to be confined to the 600 set-top boxes. With these observations, I dispose of the writ petition. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgem
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =