2018 (2) TMI 195 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 494 (All.) – Seizure of goods – Tasla – Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – Held that: – the impugned order of seizure cannot be held to be bad in law only for the reason that the wrong provision of Act has been mentioned while passing the same as the power of seizure is clearly traceable under the relevant Act as well – the impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act rather than the one passed under U.P.G.S.T. Act.
–
The goods and the vehicle seized are directed to be released on furnishing indemnity bond as well as security other than cash and bank guarantee of the taxable amount of the seized goods. – Writ Tax No. 95 of 2018 Dated:- 29-1-2018 – Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Mr Aditya Pandey, Mr Bipin Kumar Pandey For the Responde
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ble to be seized under the U.P.G.S.T. Act. Sri Tripathi, in response to the above argument submits that in the matters covered by Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST) the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act apply mutatis mutandis. Since analogous provisions like Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act exist in the Central G.S.T. Act as well, the order of seizure is not illegal or without jurisdiction. The U.P.G.S.T. Act makes provision for levy and collection of tax on intrastate supply of goods or services or both i.e. relating to transactions within the State, whereas IGST Act covers interstate transactions. In this view of the matter, the transaction in question is treated to be covered by the IGST Act and the provisions of U.P. G.S.T. Act would not apply. However, a similar provision as Section 129 of the U.P. G.S.T. Act exists in the Central G.S.T. Act as well. Section 20 of the IGST Act provides that the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act would apply in respect of matters o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
9;Tasla' was exempted from G.S.T. vide notification dated 29.06.2017 and 'Ghamella' has been included in the taxable goods vide notification dated 25.01.2018. Thus, on the relevant date 'Ghamella' was also an exempted item and the order of seizure is patently illegal. In view of above, the question for consideration is whether the consignment of goods seized is that of 'Tasla' or 'Ghamella' and whether on the relevant date of seizure 'Ghamella' was exempted from taxation. Sri Tripathi is directed to seek instructions and file counter affidavit within a month. Two weeks, thereafter, are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit. List for admission / final disposal immediately after expiry of the above period. In the meantime, the goods and the vehicle seized are directed to be released on furnishing indemnity bond as well as security other than cash and bank guarantee of the taxable amount of the seized goods. – Case laws – De
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =