UP GST Section 129(3) | The Dept. Must Prove If Goods Were Moved Twice Using the Same Documents

 Depending on its former decision in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the burden to prove the double movement of goods based on the same documents lies on the department.

The Allahabad High Court in M/s Anandeshwar Traders v. State of U.P. and Others ruled that the positive burden to prove that goods had been transported on an earlier occasion is in the Assessing Authority. The court noted that as no inquiries were incurred from taxpayers, toll plazas, purchasing dealers, or any other source as to whether goods had been transported earlier, no presumption can be drawn by the authorities just on the e-way bill.

The Court in M/s Anandeshwar Traders ruled that a conclusion without proof cannot be drawn against the double use of e-way bills. Such a conclusion ought to be based on facts and proof that the assessing authority determined which has been examined to test the order correctness and not the conclusions, recorded without any material on record.

Justice Shekhar B. Saraf said that the authorities must ascertain whether the double movement of the goods has taken place.

The applicant's counsel furnished that during the interception of goods, all the pertinent documents were present and matched the description of the goods being transported. Just on the vehicle driver's alleged statement, the goods were detained he quoted that he was transporting the goods for the second time via the identical documents. It was furnished that the same statement of the driver recorded on MOV-01 was never furnished before the applicant.

Read Also:- Allahabad HC Quashes GST SCN as Well as Penalty Order Regarding Pre-Interception of E-Way Bills and Tax Evasion

Respondent counsel cannot produce the MOV-01 since the same is not being furnished by the appropriate officer. But a sheet was produced to the court as a driver's statement, no MOV-01 was accompanying such paper, the court witnessed.

Laying on the Allahabad High Court decision in M/s Anandeshwar Traders, the Court stated that the burden to prove the double movement of goods was on the department which it had not released.

The Court while holding that the department does not intend to evade the tax permitted the writ petition.

The High Court directed the Commissioner, State Tax, U.P. to regard that the matter was being decided in the taxpayer's favor established on the counsel's inability on behalf of the department to argue their case because of no support and documents being furnished via the authorities.

A usual precaution needs to be provided before the authorities for the non-assistance and not providing the pertinent documents to the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent authorities failing the department's lawyers to defend the case of the department effectively. This court multiple times has passed orders in favor of the taxpayer since the department has not been able to defend its case by timely furnishing pertinent documents to the State counsel.