2018 (10) TMI 1236 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 377 (All.) – Detention of goods with vehicle – production of e-way bill – respondent has directed the petitioner to appear and file his reply before him on 28.03.2018 at 11-00 a.m. whereas the impugned seizure order has been passed on 27.03.2018 – Held that:- The impugned seizure order cannot sustain in the eyes of law as the same has been passed ignoring the fact that the time and date has been given by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner for appearance and for production of the relevant documents on 28.03.2018, whereas the order has been passed on a day before the date allowed by the respondent no. 2.
–
Also, while passing the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 no time has been mentioned by the respondent no. 2 whereas while issuing notice/detention memo he has specifically mentioned the time. This clearly goes to show the ill intention on the part of the respondent no. 2.
–
The seizure order dated 27.03.2018
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n order from a party, which is also registered, for supply of certain tyres and tubes. In pursuance of the purchase order received, the consignment was booked by the petitioner for transportation from Allahabad to Mirzapur. It is claimed by the petitioner that requisite documents were accompanied during the course of movements of the goods, however, the Assistant Commissioner (Incharge), Commercial Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit-1, Mirzapur, U.P. has intercepted the goods on 27.03.2018 and has issued a notice/detention memo under Section 129(1) of the Act. In the said notice while mentioning the date respondent no. 2 has also mentioned time being 7-30 a.m. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent no. 2 on 28.03.2018 at 11-00 a.m. in his office. According to the petitioner, he was not aware about the requirement of E-Way Bill for the purposes of transportation of goods from one place to another place within the State of U.P.. The claim of the petitioner is that he has down l
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
order has been passed on a day before the date allowed by the respondent no. 2. We have also noticed that while passing the impugned order dated 27.03.2018 no time has been mentioned by the respondent no. 2 whereas while issuing notice/detention memo he has specifically mentioned the time. This clearly goes to show the ill intention on the part of the respondent no. 2. From perusal of the record, we find that the goods were transported from one place to another within the State of U.P. and were accompanied by the requisite documents and requisite E-Way Bill has also been produced by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 before the date fixed for reply. In view of the aforesaid fact, we have no other option but to allow the present writ petition and to quash the seizure order as well as consequential notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. In view of above, the seizure order dated 27.03.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as consequential notice issued under Section
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =