Shekhar B. Saraf JUDGMENT
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
1. Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shankar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in appeal dated June 22, 2019 and the order dated June 22, 2018 imposing penalty under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
Facts as narrated in the writ petition are as follows :-
3. Petitioner is a company, engaged in manufacturing Artist Brush and its materials, for which Petitioner is duly registered under the GST regime with GSTN No. 09AAACI2206F1Z2. Petitioner is having its manufacturing unit established in Noida Special Economic Zone (hereinafter referred to as 'SEZ'). In normal course of business, petitioner sold 102 boxes of Artist Brushes valuing Rs. 16,86,696.68/- to one M/s. Pidilite Industries Ltd., Delhi (GSTIN No. 07AAACP4156B1ZU) vide Tax Invoice No. 18-19/CEN/23 dated 14.6.2018, after charging Integrated Goods and Service Tax (hereinafter referred to as the 'IGST') at applicable rate of 18%. Since the transaction in question was from a SEZ unit to a Domestic Traffic Area (hereinafter referred to as 'DTA'), hence petitioner also charged customs duty and SWS (customs) at the rate of 10% each and also filed Bill of Entry in respect of the transaction in question. After preparing tax invoice and bill of entry, petitioner contacted transporter M/s. Pawan Roadlines, for transportation of goods, who agreed to transport the goods on vehicle bearing registration no.UP14DT-8219. On the basis of the information provided by transporter, petitioner generated e-way bill no. 4110 1410 2307 (valid till 22.6.2018), after uploading all the required details relating to th........