Grounds of Writ-The Petitioner, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 and subsequently upheld by Respondent No. 1, submits that during the verification of goods in transit, Respondent No. 2 did not raise any objection regarding any discrepancy between the goods described in the e-way bill and the tax e-invoice. However, at a later stage, the Respondent altered its position and alleged a difference in the goods.The Petitioner contends that the authorities are not entitled to shift their stand subsequently, especially when no issue was raised at the time of initial verification.
Order-The Court has ruled in favour of the Petitioner and quashed the impugned order. The court observed held that once the goods were verified and found to be in conformity with the accompanying documents, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to subsequently alter the grounds of action by alleging that the goods were different. The Court further directed the Respondents to refund any amount deposited by the Petitioner, if any, within three weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order.
GST case Law Maa Kamakhya Trader versus Additional Commissioner
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 838 (ALLAHABAD)
Authors-Bhogavalli Mallikarjuna Gupta & Siddharth Surana
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
