9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax - petition allowed. - Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. For the Petitioner : Ankur Agarwal, Suyash Agarwal For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. 1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bipin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner has assailed the order dated August 30, 2017 passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated November 22, 2018 passed by the respondent No.1. 3. The first impugned order dated August 30, 2017 was passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve completely failed to observe the same. It appears that for the field authorities there was a gross chaos on account of quick changes in relevant provisions, hence, authorities concerned could not appreciate, what provision is supposed to be followed by concerned person and what is actual default, if any, which has been committed by such person. The petitioners (except Writ Petition No. 87 of 2018) in the present cases, when goods in transit were intercepted and impugned orders were issued, met an unauthorised act and suffered illegal order. 51. To complete the story, we may observe that rule 138 again stood substituted by notification dated March 26, 2018 which has come into force on April 1, 2018 but here also sub-rule (7) has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deliberately committed any fault or disobeyed law intentionally or fraudulently, particularly when respondent- authorities themselves were not very clear. It also cannot be said that there is/was any intention of evasion of tax on the part of these petitioners. In the facts and circumstances, in all the writ petitions (except Writ Petition No.87 of 2018), we are clearly of the view that seizure orders, show-cause notices, issued under section 129(3) and final orders, if any, are not sustainable in law. 5. Similar order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Harley Foods Products Ltd. vs. State of U.P. reported in 2018 NTN (68) 53 . 6. Upon perusal of the record, I find that neither in the show cause notice no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
