2018 (5) TMI 696 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 411 (All.) – Seizure of goods – penalty u/s 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017 – failure to produce Transit Declaration Form-I – Held that: – on account of absence of any notification by the Central Government under Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in view of incorrect application of notification issued by the State Government under Rule, 138 of UPGST Rules, on the date of incident Form TDF-I or any other Form was not required in the case of inter-state movements of goods – petition allowed. – WRIT TAX No. 718 of 2018 Dated:- 1-5-2018 – Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Anand Kumar Singh For the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. ORDER Hear
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ent portal. In the aforesaid documents all the requisite details were duly mentioned including the IGST charge @ 18% and 28% respectively. The Assistant Commissioner Mobile Squad, Unit-10, Agra, who has intercepted the vehicle on 19.03.2018, has proceeded to pass the seizure order under Section 129(1) of UPGST Act on the ground that during the course of verification, the vehicle in-charge failed to produce the Transit Declaration Form-I. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the transit declaration form is not required for the transportation of goods under the inter-state transaction but on insistence by the respondent no. 4 the person in-charge of the vehicle has downloaded the TDF-I on 22.03.2018 i.e. before the sei
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ided a Writ Petition No. 583 of 2018 (M/s Ramesh Chand Kannu Mal Vs. State of UP and 2 Others) in which it is held that on account of absence of any notification by the Central Government under Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in view of incorrect application of notification issued by the State Government under Rule, 138 of UPGST Rules, on the date of incident Form TDF-I or any other Form was not required in the case of inter-state movements of goods. Since the facts of the present case are identical of the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 583 of 2018 M/s Ramesh Chand Kannu Mal Vs. State of UP (supra), we follow the said decision. The writ petition is allowed. The goods and vehicle, which are seized, are directed to be released forthwith and the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =