M/S Raheesh Ahmad And Company Through Its Proprietor Raees Ahmad vs. The State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 275 of 2020 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. Heard Shri Vishwjit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned ACSC for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 07.08.2018 and the consequential order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 as well as the impugned order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm and carrying on the business of raw tobacco. The petitioner received an order for supply of raw tobacco from M/s Tej Ram Dharam Pal Private Limited, Sonipat (Haryana), pursuant to which the petitioner supplied raw tobacco in 350 bags by tax invoice no. 25 dated 03.08.2018 for the value of Rs. 795200/-. He further submits that since the goods were to be transported from Patiyali, which is a very small village where no transport Company was available, therefore, the petitioner booked a transporter from nearby town, i.e., Kaushal Transport Company, Kaimganj, Farrukhabad, who had only one or two vehicles for transportation. The vehicle in question was RJ 05 GA 9444. The petitioner generated e-way bill and other documents. He further submits that since the goods are subject to market fee and development cess under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, therefore, 6-R and 9-R were also issued. In 9-R, the vehicle in question registration number was also mentioned. Since the vehicle was not available on 03.08.2018, when tax invoice, e-way Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vishwjit Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Raheesh Ahmad And Company Through Its Proprietor Raees Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary, Institutional Finance And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
bill, 9-R, 6-R were issued, hence, the said goods were loaded on 06.08.2018, once the vehicle became available. He further submits that while the goods were on an onward journey, the same were intercepted on the ground that under the garb of document dated 03.08.2018, the petitioner conducted multiple trips, to which the petitioner submitted its reply. Not being satisfied with the same, the seizure was passed demanding security for release of the goods and the proceedings under section 129 of the GST Act were initiated, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal, which has been dismissed without considering the material on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no evidence for alleging multiple trips conducted by the petitioner under the garb of tax invoice, e-way bill, 9-R dated 03.08.2018. He further submits that the respondents were put to strict proof of the same, but instead of allowing the appeal, the appeal has been dismissed. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in B1 Agro Oils Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Others [Writ C No. 31593/2019, decided on 31.01.2023] and M/s Kay Pan Fragrance Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others [Writ Tax No. 827 of 2019, decided on 13.05.2024]. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned orders and submits that the goods were not transported on the date when the documents were generated and therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner as the goods were seized much after. He further submits that the report was sought from the Toll Plaza where it has categorically been found that the vehicle in question took trips multiple times, which itself shows that the trips were conducted by the petitioner under the garb of documents dated 03.08.2018.. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question, at the time of interception, was having documents dated 03.08.2018. The goods in question are raw tobacco. The stand taken by the petitioner is that the vehicle was not available on the date of generation of the tax documents, but no evidence, other than the simple assertion, has been brought on record to justify the said fact. On the contrary, the record also shows that the Toll Plaza has duly certified that the vehicle in question has crossed on 04.08.2018 at 12.36 a.m. and returned in the next morning to Aligarh at 09.25 a.m., which shows the vehicle in question had taken multiple trips, to which no rebuttal was filed by the petitioner. The said fact clearly shows evasion of tax by the petitioner under the garb of documents mentioned above. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts of the case, the judgements replied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to them. In the case in hand, specific findings have been recorded on the basis of information received from the Toll Plaza that the vehicle in question has crossed the Toll Plaza on 03/04.08.2018 night from Aligarh towards Delhi and in the next morning it has returned. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. The writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. September 1, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.