TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final order has been passed against which petitioners have got a statutory remedy of appeal, we are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Petition dismissed. - Misc. Bench No. - 19542 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 18-7-2019 - Anil Kumar And Saurabh Lavania JJ. For the Petitioner : Sameer Gupta,Abhimanyu Singh,Atul Krishna For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the detention order dated 06.06.2019 and penalty notice dated 06.06.2019 broadly on the ground of jurisdiction of respondent no.2/Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rception of vehicle and therefore, it cannot be alleged that there was any intention to evade the payment of tax. Further, submitted that there is no allegation with respect to any discrepancy in the documents, which were accompanying the goods. The validity of the E-Way Bill has not been doubted by the respondent authorities and the seizure has been made on the basis of suspicion. The seizure is entirely based on surmises and conjectures and is, therefore, bad in law. As per the provisions of Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017, the goods and the conveyances can only be seized where any person transports any goods in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The term &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o far as proposition that carrrying of goods in a vehicle does not amount to storage is concerned. In this regard reference may be made to Bijaya Kumar Agarwala v. State of Orissa, AIR 1996 SC 263. 17. Viewed from this perspective, as the petitioner no.1 company, who had valid licence to deal with Vanaspati Dalda, continued to be the owner of the Vanaspati Dalda, no contravention can be held to have occasioned by the time of seizure and the consequent order of confiscation is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 253 has held that Penalty shall not be imposed in cases of technical or venial breach of the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
