2017 (12) TMI 342 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 338 (All.) – UP GST – detention of goods – petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause or give reply to the allegation on which goods have been seized – goods detained on account of absence of Transit Declaration Form (TDF) – Held that: – Inasmuch as the petitioner had no notice or opportunity to explain his conduct with respect to the discrepancy in the Tax Invoice alleged in the seizure order, we consider it proper to set aside the orders passed u/s 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act – matter remanded for reexamination – appeal allowed by way of remand. – WRIT TAX No. – 771 of 2017 Dated:- 1-12-2017 – Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Suyash Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Gyan Narayan Kanaujiya ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.10.2017 passed under Section 129(1) U.P. GST Act (hereinafter r
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g the goods the IGST and the compensation cess values have been mentioned at ₹ 17,42,400/- and ₹ 11,88,000/- respectively. Those values have been mentioned at ₹ 5,54,400/- and ₹ 11,88,000/- in copy of Tax Invoice (no. 19) dated 25.10.2017 filed along with the reply furnished by the petitioner. Taking note of the aforesaid discrepancy the proper officer has without issuing any other or further notice passed the seizure order wherein an intention to evade tax has been inferred against the petitioner. Consequently, the penalty order has been passed on 31.10.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, the detention and seizure had been made only on account of absence of TDF form. No other ground had been disclosed to the petitioner at that stage. He therefore submits, the seizure has been made ex-parte though the movement of goods from Delhi to Jhankhand was otherwise established on record and the goods could not have been detained or seized merely because of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ed. Inasmuch as the petitioner had no notice or opportunity to explain his conduct with respect to the discrepancy in the Tax Invoice alleged in the seizure order, we consider it proper to set aside the orders dated 28.10.2017 and 31.10.2017 passed under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the Act. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 4. The petitioner shall treat the seizure order dated 28.10.2017 to be a show cause notice in respect of the charge levelled against it. It shall furnish the reply thereto before respondent no. 4 necessarily within a period of one week from today. Upon such reply being furnished, respondent no. 4 shall have one week thereafter to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law. However, inasmuch as there is no allegation against the vehicle with respect to the same may be released in the meanwhile without any security. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax Management India – taxma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =