Zebronics India Private Limited Versus State of U.P. & 3 Others
GST
2018 (4) TMI 1074 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 214 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 4-12-2017
Writ Tax No. – 799 of 2017
GST
BHARATI SAPRU AND SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner: Shri Shubham Agrawal, Advocate and Shri Lokesh Mittal, Advocate
\nFor the Respondent: C.S.C., A.S.G.I.
\nJUDGEMENT
\nHeard Shri Shubham Agrawal along with Shri Lokesh Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri C.B.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the department.
\nThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the seizure order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the respondent no.4, Assistant Commissioner, State Tax\/Sta<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n on the solitary allegation of absence of Transit Declaration Form (hereinafter referred to as the 'TDF'). However, no defect was noticed or alleged with respect to the Tax Invoice and the Goods Receipt and the facts disclosed therein. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n a transaction of inter-state trade, and there being no requirement under the CGST Act for the goods to be accompanied with the TDF, the breach alleged is mere technical. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Zebronics India Private Limited Versus State of U.P. & 3 OthersGST2018 (4) TMI 1074 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 214 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 4-12-2017Writ Tax No. – 799 of 2017 GSTBHARATI SAPRU AND SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, JJ. For the Petitioner: Shri Shubham Agrawal, Advocate and Shri Lokesh … Continue reading “Zebronics India Private Limited Versus State of U.P. & 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-11498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11498","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=11498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe petitioner further alleges that it downloaded the TDF on the same day i.e. on 15.11.2017 (A copy of the same has also been annexed with the writ petition) and filed its reply along with the TDF but the goods were seized on 16.11.2017. Subsequently, a penalty notice was also issued to the petitioner in response to which the petitioner again reiterated his stand of the goods being transported from Chennai to Dehradun by way of stock transfer against valid Tax Invoice, Goods Receipt and also it relie<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nOpposing the aforesaid prayer Shri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel submits that in the first place the TDF had not been submitted by the petitioner at the stage of seizure but only at the stage of penalty in reply to the penalty notice. However, learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the TDF was downloaded by the petitioner on 15.11.2017 at 10.39 pm. Also he is unable to show from the penalty order how the respondent no.4 has inferred the intention to evade tax.
\nIt is clear that the goods have been detained, seized and penalty has been imposed mer<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n