Super India (Global) Logistics Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And Another
GST
2018 (10) TMI 1238 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 373 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 24-4-2018
WRIT TAX No. – 686 of 2018
GST
Mr Krishna Murari And Mr Ashok Kumar, JJ.
For The Petitioner : Hari Nath Chaubey, Niraj Kumar Singh
For The Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Shri Niraj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Staterespondents.
Petioner-consignor is a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 23AAACJ1657R1Z9 and consignee is also a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 03AABCB2066P1ZP.
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s having validity upto 28.03.2018. However, the Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached with the consignments. The goods were being moved from Gwalior (M.P.) to Zirkpur (Punjab) and while the vehicle was passing through State of U.P. (Agra), it was intercepted by the respondent no. 2 on 23.03.2018 at around at 8-30 a.m. and an interception memo was drawn and the vehicle was seized on the ground that the goods loaded on the vehicle were being transported from the State of U.P. to outside the State of U.P. but while passing the vehicle outside the State of U.P. was without having any T.D.F. and thus, the consignment is needed physical verification. Physical verification of the consignment was carried out on the same date i.e. o
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Bench judgment of this Court, at Lucknow, rendered in Misc. Bench No.5536 of 2018, Satyendra Goods Transport Corporation through Prop. Bhuwan Kohli & another Vs. State of U.P. and others thru. Principal Secretary Tax & Registration & others, dated 13.04.2018 wherein it has been held as under :
” Furthermore, we find that alongwith the consignment of goods the driver was carrying an invoice which mentioned that the goods were being taken from the State of Uttarakhand to the State of West Bengal, therefore, as of now, it was an inter-State trade and there is nothing on record to show otherwise. The assertion that I.G.S.T. had already been paid, has also not been denied by the opposite parties nor that both the consignor and consignee are re
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =