M\/s M.K. Enterprises Thru' Its Prop. Mukesh Kumar Versus State of U.P. & 3 Others
GST
2017 (12) TMI 342 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 338 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 1-12-2017
WRIT TAX No. – 771 of 2017
GST
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ.
\nFor the Petitioner : Suyash Agarwal
\nFor the Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.,Gyan Narayan Kanaujiya
\nORDER
\nThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 28.10.2017 passed under Section 129(1) U.P. GST Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the penalty order dated 31.10.2017 passed under Section 129(3) of the Act.
\nThe petitioner claims to to transporting 'Panmasala' from D<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rs. While in the copy of Tax Invoice (number 19) dated 25.10.2017 found accompanying the goods the IGST and the compensation cess values have been mentioned at Rs. 17,42,400\/- and Rs. 11,88,000\/- respectively. Those values have been mentioned at Rs. 5,54,400\/- and Rs. 11,88,000\/- in copy of Tax Invoice (no. 19) dated 25.10.2017 filed along with the reply furnished by the petitioner. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n itself it became clear that tax was sought to be evaded inasmuch as, according to him two copies of the computer generated tax invoice cannot record different figures of IGST and compensation cess. He therefore submits, the seizure order has been correctly passed on the allegation of intention to evade tax for the reason of Tax Invoice being not genuine. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s M.K. Enterprises Thru' Its Prop. Mukesh Kumar Versus State of U.P. & 3 OthersGST2017 (12) TMI 342 – ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – 2018 (14) G. S. T. L. 338 (All.)ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 1-12-2017WRIT TAX No. – 771 of 2017 GSTHon'ble Bharati Sapru And Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : … Continue reading “M\/s M.K. Enterprises Thru' Its Prop. Mukesh Kumar 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-9301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9301","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=9301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9301\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nTaking note of the aforesaid discrepancy the proper officer has without issuing any other or further notice passed the seizure order wherein an intention to evade tax has been inferred against the petitioner. Consequently, the penalty order has been passed on 31.10.2017.
\nLearned counsel for the petitioner submits, the detention and seizure had been made only o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nWithout going into the merits of the case, we find that the allegation made in seizure order that petitioner was not given any opportunity to show cause or give reply to the allegation on which goods have been seized.
\nInasmuch as the petitioner had no notice or opportunity to explain his conduct with respect to the discrepancy in the Tax Invoice alleged in the seizure order, we consider i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n