2018 (9) TMI 1767 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 814 (All.) , [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 6 (All) – Release of seized goods with vehicle – Section 129 of the CGST Act – ground for seizing the goods is that in the invoice, E-way bill and weigh slip the Truck number was mentioned being U.P.-78-DN 7983 instead of U.P.-78-DN 7938 – Petitioner contended that the mistake was due to inadvertent human error by the person who has prepared the documents including E-way bill, as the vehicle no. is mentioned by him what he has noticed in the tax invoice and further that he has mentioned the same in all other papers/documents subsequent to issuance of invoice – Held that:- Surprisingly, neither the mobile squad authority nor the appellate author
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
8 passed by respondent no.3 and further to release the goods and the vehicle. Prima facie, this Court finds that on totally frivolous grounds the goods in question are seized by the Mobile Squad-9, Kanpur. The counsel for the petitioners has placed a copy of the circular dated 14.09.2018 being Circular No. 64/34/2018-GST issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, GST Policy Wing which is one of the highest authority, which clearly indicates in Clause 5 that the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act may not be initiated, inter alia, in the situation which are mentioned in the said circular. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Clause
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
weigh slip the Truck number was mentioned being U.P.-78-DN 7983 instead of U.P.-78-DN 7938. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said mistake was due to inadvertent human error by the person who has prepared the documents including E-way bill, as the vehicle no. is mentioned by him what he has noticed in the tax invoice and further that he has mentioned the same in all other papers/documents subsequent to issuance of invoice. Surprisingly, neither the mobile squad authority nor the appellate authority appreciated the claim of the petitioner that it is due to mistake or human error the vehicle number (particularly last two digits) are mentioned different which in the instant case are 83 in place of 38. This Court is unhappy
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =