9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 696X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.C. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner is a transporter and is challenging the seizure order dated 19.03.2018 and the consequential notice for levied of penalty dated 29.03.2018 issued under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. Brief facts of the case are that the goods and vehicle was intercepted by the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the transit declaration form is not required for the transportation of goods under the inter-state transaction but on insistence by the respondent no. 4 the person in-charge of the vehicle has downloaded the TDF-I on 22.03.2018 i.e. before the seizure proceedings are completed. However the penalty notice is also issued. Against the seizur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any notification by the Central Government under Rule 138 of CGST Rules, 2017 and in view of incorrect application of notification issued by the State Government under Rule, 138 of UPGST Rules, on the date of incident Form TDF-I or any other Form was not required in the case of inter-state movements of goods. Since the facts of the present case are identical of the aforesaid Writ Petition No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
