2018 (11) TMI 888 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI – Detention of goods – goods detained for the reason that the petitioner has tried to hide the correct identity of the consignee – Held that:- In view of the bilty and invoices, prima-facie there cannot be any controversy with regard to the identity of the person or dealer to whom the goods meant for delivery.
–
The detained goods and the vehicle shall be released forthwith, on the petitioner furnishing security other than cash and bank guarantee and the indemnity bond of the amount of the proposed tax and the penalty, as the petitioner is the owner of the goods, as per notice under Section 129(3) read with Section 129(1)(A) of U.P.G.S.T. Act. – Writ Tax No. – 1430 of 2018 Dated:- 2-11-20
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
goods have to be delivered. The petitioner has also produced two invoices, one issued by the seller/ consignor of Chhattisgarh and the other from the petitioner himself for sale of those very goods to the consignee at Hamirpur. In view of the aforesaid bilty and invoices, prima-facie there cannot be any controversy with regard to the identity of the person or dealer to whom the goods meant for delivery. Moreover, the argument is that the goods and the vehicle can be seized under Section 129(1) only if there is any contravention to the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The detention order fails to specify any provision of the Act or the Rules which has been violated. Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondents prays for an
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =