2018 (4) TMI 530 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 137 (All.) , [2018] 1 GSTL 123 (All) – Seizure order – Section 129(1) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 – goods seized on the ground that the goods was being transported without E-way bill-02, the GSTIN number written on the tax invoice belongs to another dealer situates at Allahabad – case of petitioner is that no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the seizure order – principles of Natural Justice.
–
Held that: – Since the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, we see no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, we have no option but to allow the present writ petition – the seizing authority though has mentioned the GSTIN number of some dealer situates at Allahabad but no details of the said dealer has been given in the impu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
sued under Section 129(3) of the said Act dated 27.3.2018 respectively. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer and has been allotted TIN by the Assessing Authority for carrying on the business for purchase and sale of Iron and Steel. The petitioner has affected the sale of Iron and Steel weighing 20 M.Ton for a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- to one M/s Ram Naresh Ramakant, Bindiki, Fatehpur. The purchaser situated at Bindiki, Fatehpur is also a registered dealer to whom the petitioner has raised tax invoice No.60 dated 25.3.2018. The invoice aforesaid indicates that the goods worth of ₹ 6,00,000/- are sold on which the petitioner has charged the Central G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of ₹ 54,000/- as also the State G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of ₹ 54,000/- and the grand total therefore has been charged to the tune of ₹ 7,08,000/-. The said goods were being transported from Varanasi to Bindiki, Fatehpur and on bypass road Nawabganj at Allahaba
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed as also the penalty be imposed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that due to technical fault of the State Web-site E-way bill-02 could not be generated on 25.3.2018 before the movement of the goods from Varanasi to Fatehpur, however, the same was generated on 26.3.2018 in the morning which was much before the date of seizure order which has been admittedly passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m. The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that since both the consignor and consignee are registered with the respective Assessing Authority and are allotted requisite GSTIN number therefore there was no reason to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner. So far as the ground no.3 related to mentioning of the GSTIN number of dealer of Allahabad instead of Fatehpur, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said mistake was a bona fide mistake as such in fact a clerical error and the same was rectified while downloading E-way bill-02 in which the c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
2018 whereas the time has been granted for submission of reply and appearance of the person concerned before the respondent no.4 on the later date. There is no dispute with regard to quality and quantity of the goods and further that the invoice issued clearly indicates of charge of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T by the petitioner. We further noticed that there is no dispute with regard to registration of the seller (the petitioner) and the purchaser as also that the goods were being transported from Varanasi to Fatehpur which are detained in between the aforesaid two places. From perusal of the record we noticed that the E-way bill-02 has been downloaded/issued in favour of the petitioner on 26.3.2018 at 11.50 a.m. and admittedly seizure order has been passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m. before which the E-way bill-02 has been produced by the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that the transaction has been made with one unknown person therefore there were some lacuna n
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =