GST Authority cannot allege discrepancy after Goods Verified in  MOV-04: Allahabad HC [Read Order]

The Allahabad High court in a recent case held that Goods and Service Tax Authority (GST) Authority cannot allege discrepancy after goods were  verified in  MOV - 04.

 Maa Kamakhya Trader, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the respondent no.1 in Appeal No.0513/2023, Assessment Year 2023-24. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the goods in question was in transit from Guwahati, Assam to Delhi and while passing through the State of U.P., the same were intercepted by the respondent no.2 on 21.09.2023 in District- Amroha.

At the time of interception, all documents were produced i.e. tax invoices, E- invoices and E-waybills and Bilties (GR) before the respondent no.2 and the statement of the driver of the vehicle was recorded in MOV-01 issued on 22.09.2023, which shows that all the documents were found to be correct, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

Relief for Samsung: CESTAT Rules Imported ‘Assembly Front’ Falls Under ‘Display Assembly’ for Customs Duty Exemption [Read Order ]

He further submitted that in the MOV-04 i.e. the physical verification report, in the column of description of goods as per the invoice and description of goods in the conveyance was noted and no difference as per the invoices and physical verification was pointed out, but thereafter, a somersault was taken by the authority that the goods were different than mentioned in the accompanying documents.

He further submitted that once the goods were verified physically and after getting the details of the goods mentioned in the accompanying tax invoices and when no discrepancy was found in the physical verification as mentioned in MOV-04, at a later stage, the authorities cannot take a different stand. On the said basis, the demand was issued against which an appeal was filed, which was also dismissed without considering the material available on record.

He further submitted that even in the counter affidavit, not a word has been whispered about the MOV-04 while noting the goods in conveyance as no difference was found in the accompanying documents. He next submits that the authorities cannot be permitted to take a different stand at a later stage in spite of being no difference to be found at the time of inspection.

It is not in dispute that the goods in question were accompanied not only with the tax invoices, E-way bill, but also E-tax invoices, e- way bills as well as G.R. (bilties) and the statement of the driver of the vehicle was also recorded in MOV-01, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

Further, the MOV-04 was also issued after the physical verification of the goods in question, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 4 of this writ petition.The perusal of the MOV-04 shows that in the description of goods as per the invoices including H.S.N. Code and description of goods in conveyance, no difference was pointed out. Once the goods in question, on the physical verification, was found as per the goods disclosed in the invoices, the revenue cannot be permitted to completely change its stand by supplementing different grounds.

On a pointed query put to the State that as soon as H.S.N. Code is fed in the column of description of goods as per invoice, whether the goods appear as per the code or it has to be fed, the answer was in negative i.e. the goods have to be fed manually.

A single bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal observed that “Once on the verification report i.e. MOV-04, the items are fed by the officer concerned, after due verification, the authorities cannot be permitted to completely change its stand or further permitted to supplement by different reasons or grounds, which were not taken or mentioned while preparing the physical verification report in MOV-04.”

The purpose of filling MOV-04, at the time of physical verification, is to find the correctness of the goods in transit from the accompanying documents and if the officer while preparing the MOV-04 did not find any change or difference in goods that of mentioned in the accompanying documents, the same cannot be permitted at a later stage for taking a different stand, a

The court held that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates