M/s M.V. Traders Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others
GST
2018 (12) TMI 609 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – TMI
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 30-11-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1518 of 2018
GST
Shashi Kant Gupta Versus Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan JJ.
For the Petitioner : Aditya Pandey
For the Respondent : C.S.C.
ORDER
Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm was registered under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act and now registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act (hereinafter referred as GST Act) and is filing returns timely and depositing the tax as per the law. He has furth
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on 67 (2) of the UPGST Act provides for confiscation of goods or documents or books or things, therefore, at the time of initiation of the proceedings under Section 67 of the Act, the respondent no.3 had already seized the goods which has been released subsequently by the direction of this Court and the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent no.3 is under challenge before this Court, therefore the proceedings again initiated by the respondent no.3 for confiscation of the goods, which is no longer with the petitioner, since the same has been sold by the petitioner, is totally illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He has further submitted that the notice dated 01.09.2018 as well as the consequential order dated 10.10.2018
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
porting the goods or the owner of the goods transporting the goods fails to pay the amount of tax and penalty for the release of the goods as per section 129(1) of UPGST Act. He has further submitted that Section 129 and Section 130 of the UPGST Act can be invoked only in those cases where the goods are in transportation for supply of goods or for receiving of goods and the above sections are not applicable on the goods found at the registered taxable persons' declared registered office or godown, therefore, the impugned notice and the consequential order is totally illegal and without jurisdiction.
The matter requires consideration.
As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.3, three weeks' time is granted for filing
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =