M/s Modern Traders Versus State of U.P. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (4) TMI 1076 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 7 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 3-4-2018
Writ Tax No. 576 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ.
For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra,Vipin Kumar Kushwaha
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Sri Nishant Mishra assisted by Sri Vipin Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel representing the State- respondents.
The petitioner being a proprietorship firm is engaged in trading of iron and steel as well as their products and is registered under the provisions of the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Assessing Authority has allotted GSTIN no. to the petitioner. The petitioner has sold 10.110 MT of Iron Scrap vide Invoice dated 24.03.2018 for the value of Rs. 1,67,017/- to M/s R.K. Enterprises of Delhi in which
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ire seizure proceedings are not only illegal but clearly is abuse of process of law as well as misuse of power. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the respondent no.3 was insisting for seizure on the ground of non-production of e-way bill, the petitioner has downloaded the e-way bill-02 on 24.3.2018 itself just after 15 minutes from the time of detention of the vehicle and has produced the same before the respondent no.3.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that without considering the e-way bill-02 which has been furnished immediately within 20 minutes from the time of the detention of the vehicle/goods, the respondent no.3 has illegally passed the seizure order after a gap of four days i.e. on 28.3.2018 by which he has seized the goods as well as vehicle in question. The seizure order indicates that the goods/vehicle has been solely seized on the ground that goods were being transported without e-way bill-02 which has been prescribed under the UPGST Rule
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
uld not invalidate the same.
The provisions of UPGST are applicable to transactions within the State of U.P. whereas IGST covers the interstate transactions.
Section 20 of the IGST makes applicable the provisions of Central GST in respect to matters relating to inspection, search and seizure under the said Act.
Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the Central GST provides that till such time e-way bill system is developed and approved by the Council, the Government by notification may specify the documents which are to be carried with the consignment of goods. In exercise of the said power a notification has been issued which provides for the carrying of e-way bill with the goods in transit but the same is applicable has been enforced w.e.f. 1st February, 2018 and not before.
Simultaneously, UPGST also contains similar provisions and in exercise of the power under Rule 138 of the Rules framed under the UPGST by a notification dated 21.07.2017 has made e-way bill mandatory but that ma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =