9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not carrying the E-way bill as are required under the U.P. G.S.T. Rules, looses significance as the petitioner were not liable to be taxed under the U.P. G.S.T. Act being an inter-state supply and further the requirement of E-way bill was recommended to be not enforced till 31st March, 2018, in view of the recommendation of the G.S.T. Council. The demand as raised in the order dated 19.03.2018 and as affirmed vide order dated 06.11.2018 are clearly not sustainable and are hereby set aside - Petition allowed. - Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. For the Petitioner : Mudit Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bill is required where the consignment value is more than Rs. 50,000/-. The petitioner for obtaining E-way bill, uploaded prescribed details on the portal of the G.S.T. and generated the E-way bill for the goods in question. It is stated that the details of dispatched goods were also entered on the portal and the same was also printed on the E-way bill. It is stated that when the goods reached at Lucknow, it was intercepted by Mobile Squad, Unit-3 of the Commercial Tax Department on 08.03.2018 and a seizure order in purported exercise of powers under Section 129 (1) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act was passed on 08.03.2018 (Annexure-7). The reason as recorded for passing the seizure order was that the E-way bill system, as introduced by the Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by filing Writ Petition No. 24677 (MB) of 2018, wherein directions were issued for deciding the first appeal itself. In pursuance to the said order, the appeal has been decided against the petitioner upholding the order dated 19.03.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that this question raised in the present writ petition is identical to the one raised in Writ Tax No. 587 of 2018 (M/S Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others) , which has been decided by this Court vide judgment dated 18.09.2018, wherein the Court had gone through the entire statutory provisions and had noticed discrepancies prevalent at that point of time with regard to the E-way bill. He argues that in any event, it is well known ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is common ground that the Tax Invoice, based upon which the goods were sent, was dated 26.02.2018 and was issued in compliance of Rule 46 of C.G.S.T. Rules. The said Invoice clearly indicates that I.G.S.T. at the rate of 28% was charged and paid, the goods were dispatched from Telangana and were seized at Lucknow on 08.03.2018 while they were being transported to the Rail Coach Factory, Raebareli. The G.S.T. was introduced in India w.e.f. 2017 and in terms of the constitutional mandate, the Central Government framed the C.G.S.T. Act, I.G.S.T. Act as well as the Union Territory Goods and Service Tax Amendment Act, 2018. In terms of the scheme of the Act, as noted by this Court in its judgm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
