2019 Taxo.online 82

MISC. BENCH No. – 3349 of 2019

S.A. PRODUCTS

STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. INSTITUTIONAL FINANCE & ORS.

2019

GST

Central Goods and Service Tax, 2017

Section 129

CGST Rules 2017

Rule No. 138

Shabihul Hasnain, Justice & Alok Mathur, Justice

In favour of assessee

High Court

Uttar Pradesh

Represented by:-

Petitioner:- Mohammad Babar Khan, Anoop Kumar Vajpayee
Counsel for Respondent:- C.S.C.
Order:-
Heard Sri Mohammad Babar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel. Petitioner has submitted that he had already paid the tax at the time of sale of goods specifically mentioned in the sales invoice e-way bill duly generated, hence, the petitioner has not contravened the provisions of CGST and SGST 2017. Petitioner says that he has generated e-way bill for more amount and on physical verification the same was found less. This cannot be inferred as a contravention under GST Rules. He has also argued that once GST is paid the opposite parties have no reasonable apprehension of evasion of tax. Any intervention with the business of the petitioner will be violative of his rights. The e-way bills have been annexed on page 20-23. The hard copies are not required. There is no inference drawn by the opposite parties that the e-way bills were not correct or they were fake. Learned Standing counsel prays for a week’s time to seek instructions.
We feel that an officer of not less than the rank of Assistant Commissioner, who is well versed with the facts of the case, may be present before the Court on the date fixed.
List on 14.2.2019 as fresh.