Corp Mediteche Private Limited Versus State of U.P. And Another
GST
2018 (8) TMI 281 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 645 (All.) , [2018] 59 G S.T.R. 350 (All)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 31-7-2018
Writ Tax No. 1049 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, J.
For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra
For the Respondent : C. S. C.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed and is allowed to implead the Union of India and GST Council as respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively.
Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel.
As prayed by Sri B.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, two weeks' time is allowed to file the reply/counter affidavit.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire seizure proceedings is invalid and without authority of law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Government Orders and forms which are necessary
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eveals that when the vehicle in question was detained at 03:30 am on 22.05.2018, the tax invoice and other documents accompanying the goods were produced by the person in charge/driver of the vehicle. The explanation was given by the driver that he was not aware about the required procedure that part-B of the E-way bill is also to be downloaded. However he has downloaded the same and placed it on the same day i.e. on 22.05.2018 at 10:56 am. The detaining authority, however has proceeded to seize the goods and to issue a notice under Section 129 (3) of the CGST Act.
The petitioner has furnished the reply to the show cause notice and explained therein that he was neither any ill intention nor the goods are meant for sale within the State of U.P. as such the goods are meant for to be supplied to the Medical Colleges, situated at Madhya Pradesh and all the details are duly incorporated in the documents, i.e. the details of the purchaser medical college being HLL Infra Tech Services Ltd. (
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
unal, learned Standing Counsel has informed that so far as no Tribunal is established.
This Court in fact has requested for forming of the Tribunal long back while entertaining the writ petitions against the seizure proceedings. Surprisingly, even after a specific order of this Court the concern authority has not acted upon and till date no Tribunal is established.
This issue is now serious as because of non establishment of the Tribunal, the parties are unnecessarily approaching this Court whereas, in case of establishment of Tribunal they can easily file the appeal under Section 112 of the Act.
Issue notice to the newly added respondent nos. 3 and 4, Union of India and Goods & Service Tax Council to explain as to why the previous orders of this Court are not complied with and as to why the statutory Tribunal is not setup so far. This explanation must be furnished within two weeks by the respondents.
Section 113 of the CGST Act, provides the procedure to be applied by the Appellat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =