TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansfer invoices at the prescribed rate - respondent are directed to release the goods with vehicle - petition allowed. - Writ Tax No. 610 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 10-4-2018 - Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Vipin Kumar Kushwaha, Nishant Mishra For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the seizure order passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 30.03.2018 and the notice dated 30.03.2018 issued under Section 191(3) of the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioner is having its registered office in Chan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vehicle number as well as other details were duly mentioned for the transportation of the goods from the manufacturing unit up to Chandigarh Transport Nagar. At Chandigarh the goods are loaded in another vehicle being Truck No. HR 46 B-9022 for the transportation from Chandigarh to Gorakhpur. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has also generated E-Way Bill prescribed under the UPGST Rules for all the three transactions, against the aforesaid three invoices, by mentioning all the relevant details with relation to the transactions in question. The contention of the petitioner is that since the movement of goods from Baddi to Gorakhpur and also from Derabassi to Gorakhpur, was on two different vehicles via Chandig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is a difference of IGST in two different invoices. The petitioner appeared and has filed reply, explaining the reasons for both ground namely as to why the vehicle numbers are hand written as well as with regard to objection of other item it is clearly stated that the petitioner is not at all related with the goods nor the same belongs to the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 has not accepted the reply as such has insisted for bank guarantee for release of the goods vide its order dated 30.03.2018. The present writ petition is against the said order dated 30.03.2018. From the perusal of the record, we find the substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed by the learned Standing Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
