9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent : C.S.C.,A.S.G.I. ORDER Heard Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Tripathi, special counsel for the respondents no. 1, 3 and 4 and Sri Anant Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of seizure dated 13.01.2018 alleged to have been passed under Section 129(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Central G.S.T. Act apply mutatis mutandis. Since analogous provisions like Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act exist in the Central G.S.T. Act as well, the order of seizure is not illegal or without jurisdiction. The U.P.G.S.T. Act makes provision for levy and collection of tax on intrastate supply of goods or services or both i.e. relating to transactions within the State, whereas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In view of above, the impugned order of seizure cannot be held to be bad in law only for the reason that the wrong provision of Act has been mentioned while passing the same as the power of seizure is clearly traceable under the relevant Act as well. Accordingly, we are of the view that the impugned order is to be treated to have been passed under IGST Act read with Section 129 of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avit within a month. Two weeks, thereafter, are allowed to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List for admission / final disposal immediately after expiry of the above period.
In the meantime, the goods and the vehicle seized are directed to be released on furnishing indemnity bond as well as security other than cash and bank guarantee of the taxable amount of the seized goods. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
