2018 (12) TMI 295 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI – Release of Goods – goods seized on account of improper invoice in respect of some of the builites – Held that:- Since the petitioner is the selling dealer and the sale transaction has not attained finality, he continues to be the owner of the goods and is therefore entitle for the release the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act.
–
Penalty – Held that:- The penalty order has nothing to do with the order of the release and it can be challenged in the appropriate forum independently.
–
Petition disposed off. – Writ Tax No. – 1480 of 2018 Dated:- 26-11-2018 – Pankaj Mithal And Pankaj Bhatia JJ. For the Petitioner : Shubham Agrawal For the Respondent
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e Act alone could have been demanded. Since the petitioner is the selling dealer and the sale transaction has not attained finality, he continues to be the owner of the goods and is therefore entitle for the release the same in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act. Sri Tripathi submits that a penalty order has already been passed. The penalty order has nothing to do with the order of the release and it can be challenged in the appropriate forum independently. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioner to deposit the tax & penalty and to furnish security & indemnity bond in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =