M/S Ayush Trasnport Co vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ayush Transport Co. Faridabad, challenged an order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate. This order imposed tax and penalty on the petitioner for failing to produce consignment notes or documentary proof to substantiate their claim of providing services related to the transportation of goods by road. The petitioner contended that they were ready to produce the consignment notes and had placed a copy of a consignment note dated 29.03.2017 on record. The respondents acknowledged that the impugned order was appealable and had been correctly passed due to the non-production of consignment notes. The Court noted that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal, as the non-furnishing of consignment notes was the basis for the assessment order. However, considering the petitioner's readiness to produce the consignment notes and the availability of a copy of a relevant consignment note, the Court decided to grant one more opportunity. The impugned order dated 20.05.2022 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer-Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, Rohtak. The petitioner was allowed to produce the consignment notes before the authorities, and a fresh order was to be passed in accordance with the law after considering these documents and providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.05.2022, passed by the Commissioner, Central GST Commissionerate, imposing tax and penalty on the petitioner for non-production of consignment notes, is sustainable in law, particularly in light of the petitioner's readiness to produce such documents? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were prepared to produce the consignment notes, even at the time of the hearing, and had submitted a copy of a consignment note dated 29.03.2017. They sought an opportunity to present these documents to the concerned authority. Revenue's contention: The respondents, represented by the Sr. Standing counsel-CBIC, argued that the impugned order was correctly passed as the petitioner had failed to produce the consignment notes. They also pointed out that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal against the assessment order.