2018 (4) TMI 97 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (10) G. S. T. L. 539 (All.) – Seizure of goods – penalty u/s 129 (3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 – it was alleged that the goods were not accompanied with proper documents – petitioner contends that all proper documents were furnished by it to the proper officer in response to the SCN – Held that: – the petitioner is a registered dealer inside the State of U.P. and certain documents i.e. original tax invoices, goods receipts etc. are being claimed to have been issued to cover the transactions – Since the revenue disputes the existence of those documents, an enquiry may be required to be conducted in that regard – However prima facie the petitioner being a registered dealer inside the State of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he revenue. The affidavit of service dated 19.12.2017 filed on behalf of respondent no.6 by the learned Special Counsel Sri C.B. Tripathi today in court, is taken on record. After the amendment made in the writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the penalty order dated 28.10.2017 as also the order dated 15.10.2017 by which certain goods which the petitioner was transporting from Kanpur to Delhi had been seized. At the time of detention of goods, admittedly, the same were not accompanied with proper documents. However the petitioner contends that all proper documents were furnished by it to the proper officer in response to the show cause notice. The revenue however disputes this position of fact. At the same time, copies of documen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
that the same was ever served on it. Upon instructions received, Sri C.B. Tripathi learned counsel for the revenue states that there appears that the penalty order was passed ex parte and there are some defects in the same. In view of such statement, we do not consider it necessary to consider the matter of penalty any further. The penalty order dated 28.10.2017 is therefore set aside and the matter is remitted to decide those proceedings afresh. The petitioner is allowed a week's time to file final reply to the final notice as also the charges that have been mentioned in the penalty order dated 28.10.2017 treating the same to be the part of the penalty notice itself. Upon the reply being furnished by the petitioner, the proper officer
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =