M\/s. Sapna Goods Carrier & Another Versus Union Of India Thru' Its Secy. & 6 Others
GST
2018 (4) TMI 97 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (10) G. S. T. L. 539 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 21-12-2017
WRIT TAX No. – 718 of 2017
GST
Bharati Sapru, And Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ.
\nCounsel for Petitioner:- Rahul Agarwal
\nCounsel for Respondent:- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Gyan Narayan Kanaujiya
\nHeard Sri Rahul Agarwal learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi learned special counsel for the revenue.
\nThe affidavit of service dated 19.12.2017 filed on behalf of respondent no.6 by the learned Special Counsel Sri C.B. Tripathi today in court, is taken on record. After the amendment made in the writ petition, the pet<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n een seized on 15.10.2017 and on that date itself penalty notice was issued under section 129 (3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. Ultimately the date fixed in the matter was 27.10.2017 and the impugned order appears to have been passed on 28.10.2017 imposing penalty equal to 100% of the value of goods seized together five per cent tax thereon. It is in the above background, the challenge has been raised both seizure as also to the penalty order. In so far as the penalty order is concerned, it is disputed by the petitioner that the same was ever served on it. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n i.e. original tax invoices, goods receipts etc. are being claimed to have been issued to cover the transactions. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Sapna Goods Carrier & Another Versus Union Of India Thru' Its Secy. & 6 OthersGST2018 (4) TMI 97 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (10) G. S. T. L. 539 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 21-12-2017WRIT TAX No. – 718 of 2017 GSTBharati Sapru, And Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. Counsel for Petitioner:- Rahul Agarwal … Continue reading “M\/s. Sapna Goods Carrier & Another Versus Union Of India Thru' Its Secy. & 6 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-11250","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11250","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=11250"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11250\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11250"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11250"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11250"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nUpon instructions received, Sri C.B. Tripathi learned counsel for the revenue states that there appears that the penalty order was passed ex parte and there are some defects in the same.\n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nSince the revenue disputes the existence of those documents, an enquiry may be required to be conducted in that regard. However prima facie the petitioner being a registered dealer inside the State of U.P.,no useful purpose would be served in allowing the goods to continue under detention.
\nAccordingly it is provided that subject to the petitioner's furnishing an adequate security in the shape of indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the proper officer for the value of goods seized, the goods as well as the vehicle so seized pursuant to the impugned notice, shall be released forthwith. It is also stated that the tax had alr<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n