Iqra Roadways (India) Thru' Its Prop. & 3 Others Versus State of U.P. & 3 Others
GST
2017 (11) TMI 1032 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (8) G. S. T. L. 368 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 14-11-2017
Writ Tax No. 729 of 2017
GST
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ.
For the Petitioner : Sanyukta Singh,Shubham Agrawal
For the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Ajay Kumar Singh
ORDER
Heard Shri Shubham Agrawal assisted by Miss Sanyukta Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel representing the respondents.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have sought the following relief :
“(a) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the seizure order dated 25.9.2017 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) as well as the consequential notice dated 26.9.2017 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 4.
(a-2) Issue a writ, order or
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (C.G.S.T. ACT) and the goods which are purchased by them are duly accompanying with the requisite Tax Invoices, Bilty as well as E-Way Bill, therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in detaining and seizing the goods under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 vide order dated 25.9.2017 is bad. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that even the vehicle has also been seized by the respondent no. 4 after detention of the goods and, therefore, the entire action of the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary as well as without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the goods in question are duly accompanying the Tax Invoices, Bilty and value of consignment, except against two invoices, is below Rs. 50,000/-, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the respondent no. 4 to seize the same. He has further submitted that the respondent no. 4 was
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
d in the present case. At the time of detention, the detaining authority has clearly mentioned in the detention memo that the necessary physical verification is required as the E-Way Bill, which was produced, was not relevant as the date and time mentioned have already expired. We find that on physical verification, the authority has found certain irregularities with regard to quality of the goods as well as quantity. It is further noticed that the goods which were covered with the documents have already been released by the respondent no. 4. However, the goods which were not accompanied with proper documents have been seized for which a notice under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act has been issued on 26.9.2017 indicating therein the value of the goods and the demanded tax which has been calculated by the seizing authority at different rates as per the individual items/goods which is mentioned being Rs. 1,11,564/-.
Against the said proceedings the present writ petition has been f
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =