TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ediately - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Tax No. 763 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2018 - Hon'ble Krishna Murari And Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard Sri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned standing counsel. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner by which the petitioner has sought the following relief : A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned seizure order and consequential order under Section 129(3) (Annexure 1 and 2) passed y respondent no.3 on the same i.e. 5.5.2018. B. Issue a writ, order or d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ption of the vehicle, he has immediately generated E-way bill on 5.5.2018 at 11.55 a.m. and tried to contact the respondent no.3, however, he was informed that the respondent no.3 will be available after 2 p.m. and thereafter at 2.30 p.m. the aforesaid E-way bill was furnished. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner has furnished the E-way bill before the respondent no.3 prior to the seizure proceedings and seizure order, but the respondent no.3 has passed the seizure order. Again without mentioning the time of passing the seizure order a consequential notice under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit the tax as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E-way bill prior to detention and seizure of goods, no seizure order can legally be passed nor penalty can be asked. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with the writ petition. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that while issuing the interception memo the respondent no.3 has mentioned the time being 1.30 a.m. on 5.5.2018 and directed the petitioner to appear on 6.5.2018 at 10 a.m. for physical verification, however while preparing the verification record (Part-A and Part-B) no time has been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to our notice that the respondent no.3, with malice intention, has deliberately not men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
