9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 2) passed y respondent no.3 on the same i.e. 5.5.2018. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.3 and his agents, to release the Vehicle No. UP13AT-1153, without insisting for deposit of any amount of tax/penalty." The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered firm and is engaged in business of Iron and Steel goods. Certain goods of the aforesaid nature were sold to one M/s Arjun Dev & Company, Delhi, who is also a registered company against the invoice No. 0003 dated 5.4.2018 after charging IGST @ 18%. The goods were handed over to the transporter who has loaded the same in a vehicle No. UP 13 AT 1153 on 4.5.2018. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to as the Act) was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit the tax as well as the penalty to the tune of Rs. 46,119/- each. An order under Section 129(3) was also passed on the same day i.e. 5.5.2018 in which no time has not been mentioned by the respondent no.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the impugned seizure order as well as the order passed under Section 129(3) are completely without jurisdiction, arbitrary as such are nothing but clearly a misuse of power by the respondent no.3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in the case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and 3 others reported in 2018 NTN (Vol.66) 245. Learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent no.3, with malice intention, has deliberately not mentioned the time in either of the orders passed being the seizure order under section 129(1) and penalty under Section 129(3). Both the aforesaid orders are passed on 5.5.2018 i.e. before the date which has been indicated in the interception memo being 6.5.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has placed the E-way bill on 5.5.2018 itself the respondent no.3 has illegally proceeded to pass the impugned orders before any physical verification done. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once the E-way bill is produced and other documents clearly indicates that the goods are belongs to the regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
