2018 (4) TMI 1076 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 7 (All.) – Seizure of detained goods – Absence of E-Way bill – contention of 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 – Held that: – 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 – even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central GST, as there was no provision of e-way bill on the relevant date under the Central GST, therefore, the seizure appears to be illegal.
–
Since the petitioner is registered dealer, there is no error at the hands of the petitioner, and therefore, the order of seizu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed IGST (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) @ 18%. The petitioner's unit is situated at Sikandrabad Road, District Bulandshahr from where goods were transported to be delivered to the consignee situated at Delhi. Admittedly, there was no e-way bill during the movement of goods from Bulandshahr to Delhi and while vehicle was crossing Ghaziabad, the same was intercepted/detained by the Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad, IVth Unit, Ghaziabad on 24.03.2018 at 5.45 P.M. The objection of the respondent no.3, Assistant Commissioner, Mobile Squad was that since there was no e-way bill-02, which has been prescribed under UPGST Rules, hence the goods are liable to be seized. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no requirement to carry the e-way bill during the Inter-state movement of the goods, therefore, the same has not been handed over to the transporter at the time of delivery of the goods. It is further contended that the entire seizure proceedings ar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ut violation of provisions of UPGST Act/Rules framed thereunder. Immediately after the seizure order passed under Section 129(1) of the Act, the respondent no.3 has issued the show cause notice under Section 129(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2018. The Seizing Authority directed the petitioner to appear on 04.04.2018 and explain as to why the tax @ 18% and equivalent amount of penalty may not be demanded. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that as admittedly the seized goods were in transit for outside the State the transaction would be covered by the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST) read with Central GST and that the provisions of the UPGST or its Rules or the notifications issued therein would not apply. Sri Tripathi, has submitted that actually the order of seizure has been passed under Section 6 of the IGST read with Section 129(1) of the Central GST and therefore, mere wrong mention of the provision on the order of seizure would not invalidate the same. T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n transit within the State of U.P. and not for goods brought from outside the State. Therefore, even if the seizure is treated to be under Section 129(1) of the Central GST, as there was no provision of e-way bill on the relevant date under the Central GST, therefore, the seizure appears to be illegal. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have noticed that both the parties namely consignee and consignor are registered dealers and goods are being transported from Bulandshahr to Delhi during transhipment the same are detained and seized. The sole ground of seizure of goods is non-production of e-way bill whereas there is no dispute with regard to issuance of invoice and charge of tax by the petitioner. In view of aforesaid peculiar facts and since the petitioner is registered dealer, we have seen no error at the hands of the petitioner, and therefore, the order of seizure passed under Section 129(1) of the Act as well as the notice issued under Section 129(3)
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =