Case Details: Jaya Traders Versus Additional Commissioner (2025) 28 Centax 70 (All.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Piyush Agrawal, J.
- Shri Aditya Pandey, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Ravi Shanker Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was engaged in the business of trading of pan masala and scented tobacco. Petitioner was transporting goods from West Bengal/Assam to Delhi, as per their claim, with accompanying tax invoices. Since the goods’ value was below Rs. 50,000, they did not generate an e-way bill. During its onward journey, the said goods were trans shipped at Kanpur, where the same was intercepted. Statement of the truck driver was recorded wherein he stated that goods were loaded from Kanpur, contradicting the documents provided by the assessee. Seizure proceedings were initiated under section 129(3) on the ground of non-genuine transportation document and under valuation. Petitioner contended that seizure on grounds of undervaluation was beyond the authority of the detaining officer.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the dealer has intentionally undervalued the goods to take wrong advantage of Rule 138 which dispense the requirement of e-way bill accompany the goods. The record further reveals that purchasing and selling firm have not shown any purchase of Pan Masala/Scented Tobacco in the Assessment Year 2021-22. It is a glaring example of organized tax evasion. The petitioner has failed to bring on record any material to show the actual movement of the goods from West Bengal/Assam. The details of truck number or toll receipt crossed during its journey from West Bengal/Assam to Kanpur have not been filed at any stage. Various findings have been recorded against the petitioner, but the same have not been assailed at any stage even before this Court. The findings of fact recorded against the petitioner have not been assailed, and the petitioner chose in its wisdom to assail only some part of the finding, i.e., on the ground of under valuation. Therefore, the dealer has intentionally undervalued the goods to take wrong advantage of Rule 138, which dispenses the requirement of an e-way bill accompanying goods. No interference was called for by this Court in the impugned seizure order.
List of Cases Cited
- S S.K. Trading Co. v. Addl. Commissioner — (2023 AHC 158372-DB) — Distinguished [Para 45]
- K.P. Sugandh Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh — (2020 NTN Vol. 74, 372), — Distinguished [Para 47]
- Radha Fragrance v. Union of India — (Writ tax No. 427 of 2019) — Followed [Para 45]
- Shiv Shakti Trading Company v. State of UP — (Writ Tax No. 756 of 2011) — Followed [Para 45]
- Shiv Trading v. State of UP — Writ Tax No. 1421 of 2022 — Referred [Para 24]
- S.K. Trading Co. and another v. Additional Commissioner Grade — Writ Tax No. 1464 of 2022 — Referred [Para 6]
