2018 (10) TMI 1238 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (17) G. S. T. L. 373 (All.) – Seizure order u/s 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 – penalty u/s 129(3) of the said Act – Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached with the consignments – Held that:- The issue is settled in the case of SATYENDRA GOODS TRANSPORT CORP. THRU. PROP. BHUWAN KOHLI & A VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. TAX & REGISTRATION & OTHERS [2018 (4) TMI 807 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where it was held that On the relevant date i.e. 17.12.2017 there was no requirement of carrying T.D.F. Form-1 in the case of an inter-State supply of goods. In fact on the relevant date there was no prescription of the documents to be carried in this regard under Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017, accordingly, the seizure and penalty imposed upon the petitioners based on the notification dated 21.7.2017 issued under Rule 138 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, which was not applicable, is clearly illegal.
–
The impugned seizure
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Section 129(3) of the said Act. Facts are that petitioner-consignor in pursuance of an order issued to it for supply of 1936 Units of Biscuits for the consignee booked the consignments through Ajay Road Lines, Gwalior (M.P.) which were being transported on vehicle No. HR-55 S-7077 and Challan No.6037 dated 21.03.2018 was generated. The consignments were duly accompanied by E-way Bill from the web portal of the Central Government containing the details of the consignor, consignee, challan number and other requisite documents 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 transporte
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ner relied upon a Division 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 registered dealers. Moreover, the requisite details having been mentioned in the invoice etc. the same would be verified at the point of destination and accordingly the matter would be scrutinized as regards th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =