2018 (5) TMI 697 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 405 (All.) – Seizure of goods – goods detained solely on the ground the goods are not accompanied with filled 'Part B' of form GST e-way bill-01 – Held that: – Since the facts of the present case are identical as of Rivigo Services Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 367 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] we are disposing of the present petition on similar terms by directing the respondent no.3 to release the seized goods and vehicle forthwith – in the present case, the seizure proceedings are carried out illegally and the same are wholly without jurisdiction – petition allowed – decided in favor of petitioner. – Writ Tax No. 731 of 2018 Dated:- 3-5-2018 – Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra,Vipin Kumar Kushwaha For the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi ORDER Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.C. Tripathi representing the respondent no
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
dealer of Assam and Nagaland. The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the consignors and the consignees are registered with their respective GST authorities. Consignors prepared the invoices and charged the IGST at appropriate rate and downloaded the e-way bill from the common portal electronically in which the transporter's details and details of invoices are duly mentioned. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that though the e-way bill has been downloaded from common portal while providing all details as necessary to be mentioned in 'Part A', since the dealers/consignors were not aware about the details of vehicle by which the goods were supposed to be transported from the godown of the transporter situated at U.P. Boarder, Ghaziabad to its ultimate destination the vehicle details could not be furnished in 'Part B' at that time. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the goods proceeded from the place of business of the consignor
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
art B' of e-way bill was not filled up. The respondent no.3 after passing the seizure order dated 24.04.2018 has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹ 67,323/- and equivalent amount of penalty. In paragraph 25 of the writ petition, the petitioner has contended that goods were being transported from the place of business of registered persons to the godown of the transporter to be reloaded in big Trolly and thereafter further transportation, and this distance from Bawana, New Delhi to U.P. Boarder godown is less than 50 km. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the decision taken by the Government that if the goods are transported within a distance of 50 km in the case of intra-state transaction, there is no requirement to fill up 'Part B'. Notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 craves out an exception and provides that registered person of transporter may not furnish details of conveyance in 'part B' and further wher
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =