2019 (3) TMI 67 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2019 (21) G. S. T. L. 469 (All.) – Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle – irregularities in the documents accompanying the goods – Held that:- In the present case, it is the owner who has come forward for release of the goods and the vehicle and therefore in the light of the interim direction of this court, security or indemnity bond equal to the amount of the purposed tax and penalty alone could have been demanded by the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax), instead he has unnecessarily asked for security/indemnity bond of heavy amount of ₹ 10,75,770/ The aforesaid demand can not be sustained in law in the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 129 (1) of the Act.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
to Ghaziabad were seized on 22.9.2018 on the basis of certain irregularities in the documents accompanying the goods. The seizure of the goods and the vehicle was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Tax No. 1328 of 2018 (M/s. R.K. International Vs. Union of India and three others). The Court vide interim order dated 4.10.2018 directed for the release of the goods subject to deposit of the security other than cash and bank guarantee or in the alternative to accept an indemnity bond, equal to the value of tax and penalty, if any, to the satisfaction of the seizing authority. In pursuance to the above interim order, petitioner approached the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax) for release of the goods by offering to furnish securi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed 4.10.2018 is very clear. It only directs for furnishing security of indemnity bond of the value of the tax and penalty and therefore the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax) can not demand security or indemnity bond of any higher value. The notice under Section 129 (3) of the Act proposes tax of ₹ 59,120/- and imposition of penalty of the same amount of ₹ 59,120/-. In the present case, it is the owner who has come forward for release of the goods and the vehicle and therefore in the light of the interim direction of this court, security or indemnity bond equal to the amount of the purposed tax and penalty alone as mentioned above could have been demanded by the Assistant Commissioner (Commercial Tax), instead he has unnece
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =