9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 1702 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods - penalty - E-Way bill - case of petitioner is that State E-Way bill though not required was still downloaded from the portal of the U.P.GST before the interception/seizure memo dated 24.2.2018 - Held that - The matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of SATYENDRA GOODS TRANSPORT CORP. THRU. PROP. BHUWAN KOHLI & A VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. TAX & REGISTRATION & OTHERS 2018 (4) TMI 807 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT where it was held that on the relevant date i.e. 17.12.2017 there was no requirement of carrying T.D.F. Form-1 in the case of an inter-State supply of goods. In fact on the relevant date there was no prescription of the documents to be carried in this regard under Rule 138 of the C.G.S.T. Act 2017, accordingly, the seizure and penalty imposed upon the petitioners based on the notification dated 21.7.2017 issued under Rule 138 of the U.P.G.S.T. Act 2017, which was not applicable, is illegal. Seized goods directed to be released - penalty also not warranted - petition allowed.
Issues:
- Writ petition challenging seizure and imposition of tax and penalty under sections 129(1) and 129(3) on goods transported. - Release of goods and truck seized under section 129. - Application for suitable writ, order, or direction. - Costs of the petition. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Seizure and Imposition of Tax and Penalty: The petitioner sought a writ to quash the seizure under section 129(1) and imposition of tax and penalty under section 129(3) on goods transported from Haryana to Lucknow. The court noted that the matter was covered by a previous judgment dated 13.4.2018 in a similar case. As a result, the petition was disposed of in line with the previous judgment, and the petitioner was granted the benefits of the said judgment. This indicates that the court relied on precedent to resolve the issue of seizure and imposition of tax and penalty. 2. Release of Goods and Seized Truck: Additionally, the petitioner requested a writ of mandamus directing the release of the goods and the truck seized under section 129 without any security. The petitioner highlighted that the State E-Way bill, though not required, was still downloaded from the U.P.GST portal before the interception and seizure. The court, in disposing of the petition, did not explicitly mention the release of goods and the truck. However, the petitioner may benefit from the judgment dated 13.4.2018, suggesting that the issue of release might have been addressed in the previous judgment. 3. Application for Suitable Writ, Order, or Direction: The petitioner also prayed for any other suitable writ, order, or direction as deemed fit by the court. Although the specific nature of the additional relief sought was not detailed in the judgment, the court disposed of the petition based on the previous judgment, implying that any further relief requested would be covered under the same. 4. Costs of the Petition: Lastly, the petitioner sought the costs of the petition. The judgment did not explicitly mention the awarding of costs to the petitioner. However, in disposing of the petition in line with the previous judgment, the court may have considered the issue of costs as part of the overall resolution. In conclusion, the High Court of Allahabad disposed of the writ petition challenging the seizure and imposition of tax and penalty on goods transported, based on a previous judgment. The court directed the registry to provide a copy of the judgment along with the order of the previous judgment to the concerned parties, ensuring the petitioner's entitlement to the benefits of the earlier decision.
|
