9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS [ 2018 (9) TMI 1261 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] followed by coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S H.B.L. POWER SYSTEMS LTD THRU AUTHORISED SIGNATORY VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. DEPT OF TAX AND REGISTRATION AND ORS [ 2022 (8) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] . The Division Bench of this Court has held that on the basis of instructions of GST Council the requirement of having e-way bill till 31.03.2018 was dispensed with - the order passed by the first appellate authority requiring the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red under CGST Act. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2017-2018. The goods of the petitioner was being transported from Kutch, Gujarat to Haridwar, Uttarakhand. The goods which were being transported in the form of raw material through a truck were intercepted on 03.03.2018 at Muzaffarnagar. The detaining authority had issued a notice which was replied by the petitioner. The goods were subsequently released complying the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act. Thereafter, the first appellate authority has proceeded to pass the order dated 10.12.2021 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. Sri Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that at the time when goods were in transit there was no necessity of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax No. 587 of 2018) decided on 18.09.2018 followed by coordinate Bench of this Court in M/S H.B.L. Power Systems Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (7) TR 6136 . The Division Bench of this Court has held that on the basis of instructions of GST Council the requirement of having e-way bill till 31.03.2018 was dispensed with. In view of the said fact, the order passed by the first appellate authority requiring the petitioner to have e-way/TDS bill when the vehicle was detained on 03.03.2018 does not hold good and the order dated 10.12.2021 is set-aside to that extent. Now coming to the second point, as far as the mention of two batch numbers on the bags is concerned, this Court finds that explanation furnished by the petitioner before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
