2024(04)LCX0599

Goverdhan Oil Mill

Versus

Additional Commissioner

WRIT TAX No. - 551 of 2024 decided on 10-04-2024

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:63409

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 551 of 2024

Petitioner :- M/S Goverdhan Oil Mill
Respondent :- Additional Commissioner And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J.

1. Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated February 8, 2024 passed in appeal by respondent No.1 and the order dated June 28, 2023 passed by the respondent No.2.

3. Case of the petitioner is that only discrepancy was in relation to the HSN qualification described in the tax invoice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since this is a case of stock transfer and the same is not disputed by the authorities, there was no question of any intention to evade tax. He relies upon two judgments of coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s Vacmet India Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appeals) and another (Writ Tax No.687 of 2019 decided on October 17, 2023) and M/s Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.78 of 2022 decided on February 6, 2024) to buttress his argument that in the case of stock transfer, penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") cannot be imposed. 4. Per contra,

4. Per contra, counsel for the State submits that since there was discrepancy in the tax invoice and the goods did not match with the goods in the truck, the same amounted to contravention of the rules, and accordingly, the authorities are justified in imposing the penalty under the Act.

5. Upon perusal of the judgments cited above by the petitioner, I am of the view that in the case of stock transfer, there is no liability of any payment of tax. Accordingly, there can be no intention to evade tax whatsoever. In the present case, the authorities did not dispute the fact that the movement of the goods was in relation to stock transfer. Accordingly, penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act is without any basis in law and is liable to be set aside.

6. Accordingly, impugned orders dated February 8, 2024 and June 28, 2023 are quashed and set aside. The writ petiton is allowed. Consequential relief to follow. Any amount that has been deposited by the petitioner towards fine/penalty be returned to the petitioner within four weeks from date.

Order Date :- 10.4.2024

(Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)