2018 (2) TMI 608 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI – Seizure order – Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – inter-state transaction – Held that: – 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 – in the matter of seizure under the provisions of IGST Act the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act such as Section 129 would apply mutatis mutandis – 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 guar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ubmission of Sri Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the goods were being transported from one State to another and as such the transaction was inter-state covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is not liable 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.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ection 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act rather than the one passed under U.P.G.S.T. Act. The next submission of Sri Pandey, is that the consignment of goods has been seized by treating them to be 'Ghamella' rather than 'Tasla'. '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 '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 abov
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =