9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 697 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods - goods detained solely on the ground the goods are not accompanied with filled Part B of form GST e-way bill-01 - Held that - Since the facts of the present case are identical as of Rivigo Services Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (5) TMI 367 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT we are disposing of the present petition on similar terms by directing the respondent no.3 to release the seized goods and vehicle forthwith - in the present case, the seizure proceedings are carried out illegally and the same are wholly without jurisdiction - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Seizure of goods under GST Act due to non-filling of 'Part B' of e-way bill. Analysis: The petitioner, a transporter, challenged the seizure of goods by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, based on the non-filling of 'Part B' of the e-way bill. The petitioner contended that despite consignors preparing invoices with all necessary details and downloading the e-way bill, the vehicle details for transportation from the U.P. godown were not available at the time of filling 'Part B'. The goods were detained solely for this reason, even though they were being transported within a distance of less than 50 km from New Delhi to the U.P. godown for further transportation to Assam and Nagaland. The petitioner argued that as per a Government decision and Notification no.12 of 2018, 'Part B' was not required for such intra-state transactions within 50 km, and relied on a previous court decision setting aside a similar seizure order. The High Court, considering the facts of the case and the previous court decision, held that the seizure proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction. Citing the Government Notification and Central Government decision, the Court directed the release of the seized goods and vehicle, setting aside both the seizure order and the penalty proceedings under Section 129(3) of the GST Act. The Court emphasized that the seizure was unjustified given the circumstances of the case and the applicable regulations, aligning the judgment with the precedent set in a similar case, thereby allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner.
|
