9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such circumstances, a finding has been recorded that there are bogus transactions made for defrauding the exchequer. In view of the fact that a prima facie finding has already been recorded, which the petitioner is free to challenge, it is opined that deposit of 25% of the amount by cash and for balance furnishing of bank guarantee would be the adequate remedy as such to ensure that the interest of the State is secured as it would be almost impossible to enforce the surety bonds of a person who does not belong to this State. The writ petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to challenge order dated 18.01.2024 passed in Form GST MOV-11. The vehicle and the goods shall be released on furnishing of 25% of the amount ment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l would lie under the provisions of the Act before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the petitioner has a remedy as such against the said order. Counsel has referred to the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 19535 of 2023, Garg Oil Traders through its Proprietor vs. The State of Punjab and others (Annexure P-13), wherein the Apex Court has accepted the view of depositing 25% of the total amount by cash and for the remaining amount, the petitioner can furnish personal surety bond. 4. We have perused the said order. Apparently, the State of Punjab was un-represented in the said order and the SLP was directed against the interim order passed by the co-ordinate Bench on 25.05.2022 in CWP-4504 of 2022, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the goods (under proceedings of Section 130); and (ii) In case where conveyance is being proceeded against, for an amount equal to tax payable on the goods being transported thereon while apprehended in the present case(s). 6. Counsel for the petitioner has accordingly submitted that he would furnish the personal surety bonds. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner as such is a proprietorship concern which is situated in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Vide the order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the authorities, a specific finding has been recorded that the supply chain of the petitioner-firm has been verified to be ingenuine and on the purchases which they have made at an earlier point of time, the said persons have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
