Goods and Services Tax – GST – By: – Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN – Dated:- 11-12-2017 – Vide Order No. 31 of 2017, dated 21.07.2017 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh specified the documents that a person in charge of a conveyance carrying any consignment of goods shall carry while the goods are in movement or in transit storage in Uttar Pradesh. Para 4 of the said order prescribes that in case of transportation of taxable goods valuing ₹ 5,000/- or more from a place outside Uttar Pradesh place outside the State, the Form TDF – 1 shall be carried with such good during the transportation of goods or their transit storage within the State and on the exit of goods from the State, the information shall be provided in Form TDF – 2 (Transit Declaration
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
such detention was there was no transit declaration form. The petitioner claims to have filed reply on 27.10.2017. Along with the reply a copy of its invoice and other documents were annexed. The seizing authority also compared the IGST and compensation cess paid as disclosed in the tax invoice of the petitioner at the stage of passing the seizure order on 28.10.2017. The Revenue found apparent discrepancy in the particulars. In the Copy of tax invoice, dated 25.10.2017 the goods the IGST and the Compensation cess values at Res.17,42,400/- and ₹ 11,88,000/- respectively. These values have been mentioned at ₹ 5,54,000/-and ₹ 11,88,000/- in copy of tax invoice dated 25.10.2017 filed along with the reply furnished by the peti
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ods could not have been detained or seized merely because of the transit declaration form has not been found. The Revenue submitted the following before the High Court- At the state of detention there was only one copy of the tax invoice available with the goods; The only reason for detention as communicated to the petitioner was absence of transit declaration form; The reply filed by the petitioner itself made it clear that tax was sought to be evaded inasmuch as two copies of the computer generated tax invoice cannot record different figures of IGST and compensation cess; The seizure order has been correctly passed on the allegation of intention to evade tax for the reason of tax invoice being not genuine. The High Court considered the ar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =