S.B.G.C. Logistics Versus State of U.P. And 4 Others
GST
2018 (5) TMI 697 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 405 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 3-5-2018
Writ Tax No. 731 of 2018
GST
Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra,Vipin Kumar Kushwaha
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi
\nORDER
\nHeard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.C. Tripathi representing the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.4 and 5.
\nLearned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has contended that he is not pressing the alternative prayer made in prayer no.A.
\nThe petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of his goods seized vide impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit VIIth, Ghaziabad (respondent no.3) as well as consequential noti<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ll has been downloaded from common portal while providing all details as necessary to be mentioned in 'Part A', since the dealers\/consignors were not aware about the details of vehicle by which the goods were supposed to be transported from the godown of the transporter situated at U.P. Boarder, Ghaziabad to its ultimate destination the vehicle details could not be furnished in 'Part B' at that time. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n this distance from Bawana, New Delhi to U.P. Boarder godown is less than 50 km. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" S.B.G.C. Logistics Versus State of U.P. And 4 OthersGST2018 (5) TMI 697 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (13) G. S. T. L. 405 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 3-5-2018Writ Tax No. 731 of 2018 GSTHon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra,Vipin Kumar Kushwaha For the Respondent : … Continue reading “S.B.G.C. Logistics Versus State of U.P. And 4 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-11748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11748","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=11748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=11748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=11748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=11748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nAccording to the counsel for the petitioner, the goods proceeded from the place of business of the consignors from New Delhi and required to be brought to the U.P. Boarder godwon at Ghaziabad and thereafter the same were required to be reloaded in bigger trolly\/vehicle for the purpose of transportation from Ghaziabad to Assam and Nagaland respectively and when the aforesaid goods proceeded from Delhi and entered into the State of U.P., the same were detained by the respondent no.3 at 3.15 P.M. on 21.04.2018, solely on the ground the goods are not accompanied with filled &#<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nCounsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the decision taken by the Government that if the goods are transported within a distance of 50 km in the case of intra-state transaction, there is no requirement to fill up 'Part B'. Notification no.12 of 2018 dated 07.03.2018 craves out an exception and provides that registered person of transporter may not furnish details of conveyance in 'part B' and further where the goods are transporter for a distance of upto 50 km within the State or Union Territory from the place of business of consignor to the place of business of transporter for further transportation.
\nLearned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Central Government, for similar cases, clarified vide clarification dated 31.03.2018 that in such cases, as like the present petitioner, only 'Part A' of Form GST e-way bill-01 to be filled up and not &<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n