Latest GST Judgments

For Full Access To All Latest Judgments on GST
Click Here To Subscribe Now
Take a tour of our GST Library

Since the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, we see no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, we have no option but to allow the present Writ petition and to set aside the seizure order.

Shanti Prime Publication Pvt. Ltd.

Sec. 129(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017 — Goods in Transit — The petitioner is a registered dealer and has been allotted TIN by the Assessing Authority for carrying on the business for purchase and sale of Iron and Steel. The petitioner has affected the sale of Iron and Steel weighing 20 M.Ton for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to one M/s Ram Naresh Ramakant, Bindiki, Fatehpur. The purchaser situated at Bindiki, Fatehpur is also a registered dealer to whom the petitioner has raised tax invoice No.60 dated 25.3.2018. The invoice aforesaid indicates that the goods worth of Rs.  6,00,000/- are sold on which the petitioner has charged the Central G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of Rs. 54,000/- as also the State G.S.T. @ 9% to the tune of Rs.  54,000/- and the grand total therefore has been charged to the tune of Rs.  7,08,000/-. The said goods were being transported from Varanasi to Bindiki, Fatehpur and on bypass road Nawabganj at Allahabad. The goods on the ground that the tax invoice was kept in a sealed envelope, the goods was being transported without E-way bill-02, the GSTIN number written on the tax invoice belongs to another dealer situates at Allahabad and not the consignee situated at Bindiki, Fatehpur as also the mobile number. The contention of the petitioner is that due to technical fault of the state web-site e-way bill-02 could not be generated on 25.03.2018 before the movement of the goods, however, the same was generated on 26.03.2018 in the morning which was much before the date of seizure order. Mentioning wrong GST was a clerical mistake. Allahabad High Court while allowing the petition held that:- From perusal of the record we have noticed that the vehicle has been detained and the goods/vehicle was seized by the respondent no.4 on 27.3.2018 whereas the time has been granted for submission of reply and appearance of the person concerned before the respondent no. 4 on the later date. There is no dispute with regard to quality and quantity of the goods and further that the invoice issued clearly indicates of charge of C.G.S.T. and S.G.S.T by the petitioner. We further noticed that there is no dispute with regard to registration of the seller (the petitioner) and the purchaser as also that the goods were being transported from Varanasi to Fatehpur which are detained in between the aforesaid two places. From perusal of the record we noticed that the E-way bill-02 has been downloaded/issued in favour of the petitioner on 26.3.2018 at 11.50 a.m. and admittedly seizure order has been passed on 27.3.2018 at 6 p.m. before which the E-way bill-02 has been produced by the petitioner. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that the transaction has been made with one unknown person therefore there were some lacuna noticed by the seizing authority. We find no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the State. The tax invoice was raised in favour of the consignee namely M/s Ram Narsh Ramakant, Bindki, Fatehpur and the same was available with the seizing authority and we see no reason as to why the seizing authority has not made any effort to make inquiry from the said dealer/consignee whose TIN number was mentioned in the tax invoice. We see that the seizing authority though has mentioned the GSTIN number of some dealer situates at Allahabad but no details of the said dealer has been given in the impugned seizure order nor the details of the mobile number holder. Since the tax invoice indicating the tax charged and the same admittedly found during the course of inspection/detention and E-way bill-02 has been downloaded much before the seizure order, we see no justification in the impugned seizure order and therefore, we have no option but to allow the present writ petition and to set aside the seizure order dated 27.3.2018 as well as the show cause notice issued under Section 129(3) of the Act for imposition of penalty. [2018] 51 TUD 45 (ALL)