HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 775 of 2023 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Shanker Pandey, learned CSC for the State-respondents. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 20.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 23.7.2021 passed by respondent no. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a private limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots for which the basic raw material is iron scrap and on purchase of iron scrap, after payment of tax , the petitioner avails the input tax credit. He submits that in the normal course of business, the purchase of iron scrap was made from Singhal Steel Suppliers, Kanpur for which four different tax invoices were issued and E-way bills as well as GRs were also prepared. He submits that the goods were transported with genuine documents and payments were made through banking channel, however, the proceedings under Section 74 of GST Act were initiated only on the ground that owner of Truck Nos. UP 78 BT 4214 and UP 78 BT 4218, namely Mohd. Tariq son of Ayub, residence of 3/1, Fahimabad, Labour Colony, Kanpur, has denied the transportation of goods and informed that the said two trucks were not operative from last two years. He submits that notices have been issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner has duly submitted reply, however, without considering the same, the impugned order dated 23.7.2021 has been passed against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2022, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gangeshwari Metals Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) without considering the grounds taken in the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of statement of the owner of the trucks, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner , therefore, legal and genuine transactions cannot be disbelieved. He further submits that in the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act, the onus of the revenue to plead and prove the contrary material for levying the penalty. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. Motabhai Iron and Steel Industries, 2015 (316) E.L.T. 374 (Guj.). 6. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner has claimed the purchase of iron scrap but owner of the vehicles, which were allegedly used for transportation of the goods, has categorically denied movement of the goods as well as the operation of the said vehicles for last two years. He further submits that findings of fact recorded against the petitioner have not been assailed at any stage even before this Court, therefore, the proceedings have rightly been initiated against the petitioner. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the records. 8. The proceedings against the petitioner has been initiated on the ground that owner of the trucks in question has denied the transportation of the goods and stated that the vehicles were not in operation. This vital finding of fact has not been assailed at any stage of present proceedings, even before this Court. Once the findings of fact recorded against the petitioner has neither been assailed nor any cogent material has been brought on record showing that the trucks in question were operative and transportation of goods have been taken place by the said vehicles, the impugned orders cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in manner. The petitioner failed to prove actual movement of goods as owner of the trucks denied transportation of the goods in question. Therefore, the judgement of Gujrat High Court relied upon by the petitioner is of no aid WTAX No. 775 of 2023 2 to him looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is called for by this Court in the impugned orders. 10. The writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. September 9, 2025 Rahul Dwivedi/- WTAX No. 775 of 2023 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAHUL DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad