M\/s Bhumika Enterprises Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2018 (4) TMI 530 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 137 (All.) , [2018] 1 GSTL 123 (All). [2018] 53 G S.T.R. 356 (All)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 3-4-2018
Writ Tax No. 564 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner : Murari Mohan Rai,Nitin Kesarwani
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.
\nORDER
\nHeard Sri Nitin Kesarwani and Sri M.M. Rai, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned special counsel for the State.
\nBy means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the seizure order dated 27.3.2018 passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 as well as the show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the said Act dated 27.3.2018 respectively.
\nThe brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered dealer and ha<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ntention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the seizure order dated 27.3.2018 under Section 129(1) of the Act by which the respondent no.4\/seizing authority has seized the goods on the ground that the tax invoice was kept in a sealed envelope, the goods was being transported without E-way bill-02, the GSTIN number written on the tax invoice belongs to another dealer situates at Allahabad and not the consignee situated at Bindiki, Fatehpur as also the mobile number. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n f tax as the tax amounting to the tune of Rs. 1,08,000\/- as C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T. was charged by the petitioner himself and the same was duly mentioned in the tax invoice separately. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n \/s Ram Narsh Ramakant, Bindki, Fatehpur and the same was available with the seizing authority and we see no reason as to why the seizing authority has not made any effort to make inquiry from the said dealer\/consignee whose TIN number was mentioned in the tax invoice. We see that the seizing authority though has mentioned the GSTIN number of some dealer situates at Allahabad but no details of the said dealer has been given in the impugned seizure order nor the details of the mobile number holder. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Bhumika Enterprises Versus State of U.P. And 3 OthersGST2018 (4) TMI 530 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 137 (All.) , [2018] 1 GSTL 123 (All). [2018] 53 G S.T.R. 356 (All)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 3-4-2018Writ Tax No. 564 of 2018 GSTHon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, … Continue reading “M\/s Bhumika Enterprises 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-11400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11400","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=11400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while issuing the show cause notice dated 27.3.2018 the Mobile Squad Authority had indicated for submission of the defence reply before him on 2.4.2018 and to explain as to why tax being not realized as also the penalty be imposed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that that due to technical fault of the State Web-site E-way bill-02 could n<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nOn the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that there was no occasion to mention the G.S.Tin number of different dealer in the invoice, though he has accepted that the same has been correctly mentioned in the E-way bill. The learned counsel for the State has further submitted that admittedly at the time of inspection\/detention of the vehicle there was no E-way bill available with the driver of the vehicle.
\nWe have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
\nFrom perusal of the record we have noticed that the vehicle has been detained and the goods\/vehicle was seized by the respondent no.4 on 27.3.2018 whereas the time has been granted for submission of reply and appearance of the person concerned before the respondent no.4 on the later date. There is no dispute with<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nSince the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection\/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, we see no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, we have no option but to allow the present writ petition and to set aside the seizure order dated 27.3.2018 as well as the show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act for imposition of penalty.
\nIn view of the aforesaid facts<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n