9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in prayer no.A. The petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of his goods seized vide impugned order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mobile Squad, Unit VIIth, Ghaziabad (respondent no.3) as well as consequential notice dated 24.04.2018 issued under Section 129 (3) of the GST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a transporter and is engaged in business of transporting goods from one place to another having its head office at Delhi and godown at U.P. Boarder, Ghaziabad as also branches in various cities. On 18.04.2018 and 20.04.2018 four registered persons/dealers of New Delhi booked their goods for transportatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'Part B' of form GST e-way bill-01. The person in-charged, though has explained that the goods are required to be reloaded at the U.P. Boarder godown for the purpose of transportation from there hence filling the e-way bill-01 of 'Part B' could not be done, for the reason that the details of vehicle, which was supposed to proceed for transportation from U.P. Boarder godown to its ultimate destination, were not known. Sole ground for seizure of goods and vehicle and issuance of notice for penalty is that 'Part B' of e-way bill was not filled up. The respondent no.3 after passing the seizure order dated 24.04.2018 has directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 67,323/- and equivalent amount of penalty. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court has set aside the seizure order as well as consequential proceedings initiated under Section 129(3) of the Act on the similar grounds. Since the facts of the present case are identical as of Rivigo Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in view of the above Notification and decision of the Central Government, we are disposing of the present petition on similar terms by directing the respondent no.3 to release the seized goods and vehicle forthwith. We further hold that, in the present case, the seizure proceedings are carried out illegally and the same are wholly without jurisdiction as also against the Government Notification and Central Government decision, hence both the seizure order and consequential penalty proceedings under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
