1. Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Similar controversy is involved in all the writ petitions, therefore, with the consent of the parties, all the aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by a common judgement treating Writ Tax No. 1022 of 2021, as leading case.
Writ Tax No. 1022 of 2021
3. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by respondent no. 1 in Appeal No. GST/110/2020-21 (A.Y. 2021-22) under Section 129 (3) of IGST/CGST Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a proprietorship firm having GSTIN No. 18BPUPT4581B1ZB and is engaged in the business of trading of pan masala and scented tobacco. He submits that in the normal course of business, the petitioner has received an order for supply of pan masala and scented tobacco from various registered dealers situated at Delhi and in pursuance of the aforesaid order tax invoice dated 15.9.2021 was raised on which IGST, cess was charged. Since the value of the goods was less than the prescribed limit, therefore, e-way bill was not generated and through tax invoice nos. 41 to 45 dated 15.9.2021, the goods were transported from West Bengal/ Assam to New Delhi and during its onward journey the same was transshipped at Kanpur where the same was intercepted. The statement of the truck driver was recorded wherein he stated that the goods were loaded from Kanpur and on the said premise, show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner submitted its reply that crossing challan prescribed under the Act was accompanying the goods showing that the goods were transshipped at Kanpur during its onward journey to Delhi and since the value of the goods was less than Rs. 50,000/- e-way bill was not required to accompany the goods, hence the proceedings cannot be initiated. He submits that the goods were seized on the ground of under valuation, which is beyond the power of the detaining / seizing authority. He submits that against the penalty order, an appeal was filed, which has been dismissed without considering the material on record.