M/S Ranchi Carrying Corporation vs. Additional Commissionr Grade-2 And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ranchi Carrying Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: one dated March 31, 2021, passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Appellate Authority) and another dated January 30, 2021, passed by a subordinate authority, both under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. These orders imposed a tax and penalty of Rs. 12,64,529/-. The petitioner had previously approached the High Court, which on December 7, 2020, set aside earlier orders due to a failure of natural justice, directing the respondents to conclude proceedings afresh. Following this, a show cause notice was issued, and after the petitioner's reply, the impugned order dated January 30, 2021, was passed. The petitioner's appeal against this order was rejected by the order dated March 31, 2021. The authorities rejected the petitioner's claim, citing discrepancies between invoice details and verifying sheets, and a violation of Rule 138, deeming it fraudulent.

Held

The Court found no merit in the writ petition. The impugned orders dated January 30, 2021, and March 31, 2021, were upheld. The reasoning was based on the findings of the authorities below that the details in the invoices (serial nos. 1 to 9) did not match the verifying sheets held by the mobile squad. Furthermore, the authorities recorded that the petitioner transported the goods in violation of Rule 138, and this action was deemed fraudulent, leading to the imposition of penalty. The petitioner's counsel was unable to demonstrate any error in these findings or the subsequent orders. Therefore, the Court concluded that the writ petition lacked substance. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated January 30, 2021, and March 31, 2021, passed under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017, are valid and legally sustainable, considering the alleged discrepancies in invoice details and violation of Rule 138. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's counsel could not point out any error in the impugned orders. Respondent's Contention: The respondents argued that the details in the invoices did not match the verifying sheets available with the mobile squad and that the petitioner transported goods in violation of Rule 138, which was done fraudulently, justifying the penalty.