Surendra Steel Supply Company Versus State of U.P. And Another
GST
2018 (5) TMI 526 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 118 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 11-4-2018
Writ Tax No. 628 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner : Niraj Kumar Singh,Amit Mahajan
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.
\nORDER
\nPetitioner-consignor is a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 06\/AGMPK6002C1ZV and consignee is also a registered dealer having GSTIN No. 09AASPG5387L1ZU. The consignee purchased M.S. Bar (mix size) from consignor valued at Rs. 10,73,100\/-. Under the purchase order the goods were being transported from Haryana where the petitioner's company is situate to Kan<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n no. 2, however, seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short 'GST Act, 2017') has been passed on 02.04.2018 at about 8-55 a.m. much before the time fixed for physical verification and inspection of the goods. It is also submitted that it has wrongly been recorded in the seizure order passed under Section 129(1) of the GST Act, 2017 that goods were being transported unauthorisedly without any E-Way Bill No.01. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that it does not appeal to reason and logic that when E-Way Bill No.01 was generated on 01.04.2018 at about 09-57 a.m. and the same would not be produced before the authority and the fact to the contrary has wrongly been recorded in order <\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Surendra Steel Supply Company Versus State of U.P. And AnotherGST2018 (5) TMI 526 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (12) G. S. T. L. 118 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 11-4-2018Writ Tax No. 628 of 2018 GSTHon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Niraj Kumar Singh,Amit Mahajan For the Respondent … Continue reading “Surendra Steel Supply Company Versus State of U.P. And Another”<\/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-11695","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11695","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=11695"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11695\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11695"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11695"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11695"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n