2026-VIL-784-ALH

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Discrepancy in place of delivery in E-Way Bill - Evidentiary value of statement of driver not recorded in Form GST MOV-01 – During transit, the vehicle was intercepted by the respondent authorities on the ground that the place of delivery mentioned in the E-Way Bill was different from the place where the goods were being transported - Seizure order was passed under Section 129(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 and a show cause notice was issued under Section 129(3) for imposing penalty - The petitioner contended that the discrepancy was a technical error occurred due to a glitch in the software system and that the statement of the driver relied upon by the authorities was not recorded in the prescribed Form GST MOV-01 and therefore has no evidentiary value - Whether a statement of the driver recorded on a plain sheet of paper and not in the prescribed statutory Form GST MOV-01 can be relied upon to support findings against the taxpayer - HELD - A statement recorded otherwise than in the prescribed Form GST MOV-01 is of very little evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon for making findings adverse to the taxpayer. The statutory scheme specifically prescribes Form GST MOV-01 for recording the statement of the owner, driver or the person in charge of the goods and conveyance. A statement recorded on a plain sheet of paper lacks the prescribed statutory format and sanctity. Such statements devoid of any evidentiary value inasmuch as the statutory scheme specifically prescribes the form for recording such statements - The impugned orders suffered from manifest procedural irregularity and warrant interference - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority for fresh decision – The petition is allowed - GST - Obligation of the Appellate authority to consider and deal with grounds raised in memorandum of appeal - Petitioner raised specific grounds in the memorandum of appeal assailing the detention and penalty order, including that the discrepancy was a bona fide technical error, there was no intention to evade tax, and the statement of driver had no evidentiary value as it was not recorded in Form GST MOV-01 - Whether the appellate authority was obliged to consider and deal with the grounds raised by the petitioner in the memorandum of appeal - HELD - Once specific grounds are raised in the memorandum of appeal, the appellate authority is duty-bound to accord due consideration to each of them. The authority may either accept or reject the contentions on merits, but it cannot brush them aside without assigning reasons - The right of appeal is a valuable statutory right and the appellate authority is obliged to deal with every material contention raised by the appellant by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The appellate authority cannot conveniently overlook and fail to deal with the grounds raised while affirming the order of the Original Authority. Failure to consider and address the grounds raised constitutes a grave procedural irregularity - The appellate order which failed to deal with the grounds raised warranted interference by the court. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after taking into consideration each and every contention raised.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page