Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2014 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 578 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTDetention of goods - petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release its goods and vehicle on furnishing of surety bond - whether the petitioner is entitled to release of goods by furnishing surety bond under section 51(6)(a) of the Act or the respondent can legitimately require the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee under section 51(6)(b) of the Act - Held that:- Procedure for furnishing information in respect of inter-State trade or commerce of goods through virtual information collection centre has been incorporated in the above mentioned rule. According to sub-rule (2), such owner or person in-charge after tendering of the aforesaid information is required to furnish electronic receipt bearing unique number allotted to him as a proof for submission of the said information. The aforesaid receipt shall be a necessary document along with the goods receipt, trip sheet or log book bill or cash memo, sale invoice, vehicle's record in which such goods are being transported. It was not disputed that there was no check-post or information collection centre which had been crossed by the transporter while going from Mandi Gobindgarh to Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana, where the documents were checked. The vehicle had been sent to Ludhiana to get cycle parts loaded which were to be loaded on the metal rolls sold by the petitioner. It was thereafter that e-ICC form was to be generated. As urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, in case the e-ICC form had been generated by the transporter earlier, the goods which were to be fetched from Ludhiana could not have been legally taken by the transporter. Thus, the case of the petitioner is covered under section 51(6)(a) and not under section 51(6)(b) of the Act. Further, the petitioner is a registered dealer under the Act and in such a situation, furnishing of surety bond would be legally permissible and the demand of bank guarantee by the respondents was unjustified. respondents are directed to release the goods and vehicle of the petitioner on furnishing of surety bond forth with - Decided in favour of assessee.
|