9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 530 - HC - GSTSeizure order - Section 129(1) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017 - goods seized on the ground that the goods was being transported without E-way bill-02, the GSTIN number written on the tax invoice belongs to another dealer situates at Allahabad - case of petitioner is that no opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner before passing the seizure order - principles of Natural Justice. Held that - Since the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, we see no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, we have no option but to allow the present writ petition - the seizing authority though has mentioned the GSTIN number of some dealer situates at Allahabad but no details of the said dealer has been given in the impugned seizure order nor the details of the mobile number holder. Also, the vehicle has been detained and the goods/vehicle was seized by the respondent no.4 on 27.3.2018 whereas the time has been granted for submission of reply and appearance of the person concerned before the respondent no.4 on the later date. Petition allowed - seizure order quashed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to seizure order and show cause notice under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner contested the seizure order dated 27.3.2018 and the show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The petitioner, a registered dealer in Iron and Steel, sold goods to another registered dealer. The goods were being transported when intercepted by the seizing authority, alleging discrepancies in the tax invoice and absence of an E-way bill. The petitioner argued that no opportunity of being heard was given before the seizure. The petitioner clarified that technical issues delayed E-way bill generation, rectified before the seizure. The petitioner contended that the tax was charged correctly, and clerical errors in the invoice were promptly corrected in the E-way bill. The State's counsel argued against mentioning a different dealer's GSTIN in the invoice, despite its correctness in the E-way bill. The State emphasized the absence of the E-way bill during the vehicle inspection. The Court reviewed the facts and found no dispute on goods' quality, taxes charged, or the parties' registration status. The E-way bill was issued before the seizure, and the transaction details were clear. The Court dismissed the State's concerns about the unknown consignee, as the invoice details were available for verification. The seizing authority's failure to contact the consignee or verify the mentioned GSTIN details raised doubts about the seizure's validity. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, deeming the seizure order and the show cause notice unjustified. The Court quashed both orders and directed the immediate release of the goods to the petitioner for delivery to the consignee. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper verification and adherence to legal procedures before seizing goods under the GST Act, ensuring fair treatment for registered dealers in transactions.
|
