M\/s Rajavat Steels And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
GST
2018 (9) TMI 1767 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 814 (All.) , [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 6 (All)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 27-9-2018
Writ Tax No. – 1300 of 2018
GST
Ashok Kumar, J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.
\nORDER
\nAshok Kumar, J.
\nHeard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
\nThis writ petition is filed with prayer to quash the notice dated 18.09.2018 passed by respondent no.3 and further to release the goods and the vehicle.
\nPrima facie, this Court finds that on totally frivolous grounds the goods in question are seized by the Mobile Squad-9, Kanpur.
\nTh<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ant case, the proceedings under Section 129 of the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the IGST Act are initiated while the goods were proceeded from Kanpur and were to be delivered at the purchaser, who situates at Udhamnagar, Uttrakhand and immediately after proceeding from the business place of the petitioner, the respondent no.4, Mobile Squad Authority has detained the truck and goods at Kalyanpur and initiated the seizure proceeding and has passed the seizure order. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Rajavat Steels And Another Versus State Of U.P. And 3 OthersGST2018 (9) TMI 1767 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (18) G. S. T. L. 814 (All.) , [2019] 60 G S.T.R. 6 (All)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 27-9-2018Writ Tax No. – 1300 of 2018 GSTAshok Kumar, J. For the Petitioner : Rahul Agarwal … Continue reading “M\/s Rajavat Steels And Another 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-14161","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14161","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=14161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nThe ground for seizing the goods is that in the invoice, E-way bill and weigh slip the Truck number was mentioned being U.P.-78-DN 7983 instead of U.P.-78-DN 7938.
\nLearned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said mistake was due to inadvertent human error by the pe<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n