9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 425 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods alongwith vehicle - Section 129(1) of the UPGST Act, 2017 - non filing Part-B of E-way Bill - Held that - Part-B of E-Way Bill requires the details of the vehicle carrying the goods and the destination - as the complete details to be filled up in Part-B of the E-way Bill were supplied on 25.05.2018, the goods were not liable for seizure on 26.05.2018 - goods alongwith vehicle to be released on furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee equivalent to the proposed tax - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues: Seizure of goods under U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to non-filing of Part-B of E-way Bill.
In the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal and Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, JJ., the petitioners challenged the seizure of goods and vehicle under Section 129(1) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the grounds of non-filing of Part-B of E-way Bill. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the seizure was unjustified as the necessary details, including those of the vehicle and destination, were indeed provided on 25.05.2018, as evidenced by the E-way Bill attached to the writ petition. The primary contention raised by the petitioners was that the seizure of goods was unwarranted as they had fulfilled the requirements of Part-B of the E-way Bill by submitting the necessary details on the specified date. It was emphasized that the completion of Part-B details on 25.05.2018 rendered the seizure on 26.05.2018 invalid. The petitioners sought the release of the seized goods and vehicle pending further proceedings. The Court directed the learned standing counsel for the respondents to file a counter affidavit within a month, with an additional two weeks granted to the petitioners for filing a rejoinder affidavit. The matter was scheduled for admission/final disposal after the specified period. In the interim, the Court ordered the release of the seized goods and vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing security, other than cash or bank guarantee, equivalent to the proposed tax amount. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of seizure of goods under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to alleged non-compliance with Part-B of the E-way Bill requirements. The Court considered the submissions of both parties and ordered the release of the seized goods and vehicle subject to the provision of security by the petitioner. The case was adjourned for further proceedings following the submission of affidavits by the respective parties.
|
