M\/s Seth Prasad Agro Private Limited Through Its Director Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2018 (2) TMI 195 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 494 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 29-1-2018
Writ Tax No. 95 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr Aditya Bhushan Singhal, Mr Aditya Pandey, Mr Bipin Kumar Pandey
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.
\nORDER
\nHeard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Tripathi, special counsel for the respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
\nThe petitioner is aggrieved by the order of seizure dated 11.01.2018 alleged t<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n hi, in response to the above argument submits that in the matters covered by Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST) the provisions of Central G.S.T. Act apply mutatis mutandis. Since analogous provisions like Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act exist in the Central G.S.T. Act as well, the order of seizure is not illegal or without jurisdiction. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n g the same as the power of seizure is clearly traceable under the relevant Act as well. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Seth Prasad Agro Private Limited Through Its Director Versus State of U.P. And 3 OthersGST2018 (2) TMI 195 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 494 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 29-1-2018Writ Tax No. 95 of 2018 GSTHon'ble Pankaj Mithal And Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr … Continue reading “M\/s Seth Prasad Agro Private Limited Through Its Director Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10313","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe U.P.G.S.T. Act makes provision for levy and collection of tax on intrastate supply of goods or services or both i.e. relating to transactions within the State, whereas IGST Act covers interstate transactions. In this view of the matter, the transaction in question is treated to be covered by the IGST Act and the provisions of U.P. G.S.T. Act would not apply. However, a similar provi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAccordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central G.S.T. Act rather than the one passed under U.P.G.S.T. Act.
\nThe next submission of Sri Pandey, is that the consignment of goods has been seized by treating them to be 'Ghamella' rather than 'Tasla'. 'Tasla' was exempted from G.S.T. vide notification dated 29.06.2017 and 'Ghamella' has been included in the taxable goods vide notification dated 25.01.2018. Thus, on the relevant date 'Ghamella' was also an exempted item and the order of seizure is patently illegal.
\nIn view<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n