9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1238 - HC - GSTSeizure order u/s 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - penalty u/s 129(3) of the said Act - Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F.) was not attached with the consignments - Held that - The issue is settled 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 clearly illegal. The impugned seizure order dated 24.03.2018 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 129(1) of the Act, 2017 and consequential notice issued under Section 129 (3) of the said Act are rendered illegal and are not liable to be sustained - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to seizure order under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 and notice under Section 129(3) based on non-availability of Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F) with consignments. Analysis: The petitioner, a registered dealer, sought a writ of certiorari to quash a seizure order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017, and a consequential notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. The consignor had booked 1936 Units of Biscuits for the consignee and transported them through a carrier, duly accompanied by an E-way Bill but without the Transaction Declaration Form (T.D.F). The goods were seized in U.P. during transportation from M.P. to Punjab based solely on the absence of T.D.F, despite no irregularities found upon physical verification. The petitioner contended that post an amendment in the C.G.S.T. Rules, 2017, the requirement of T.D.F. was rescinded, and no T.D.F. was necessary. Citing a Division Bench judgment in a similar case, it was argued that the absence of T.D.F. did not indicate tax evasion, especially when necessary details were provided in other documents. The Court agreed with the Division Bench's decision and held the seizure order and notice as illegal, quashing them. The seized goods and vehicle were ordered to be released upon production of the order copy. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of following legal provisions and respecting settled precedents in matters related to seizure orders under the GST Act, ensuring fair treatment to registered dealers in inter-State transactions.
|
