9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 8.4.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 16.10.2019 under Section 129 (3) of UPGST Act, 2017 was confirmed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a registered dealer and engaged in the business of selling Ancle (Sweet Supari) and Varanasi Ashik (Betel Nut Product). In the normal course of business, 90 bags of Betel Nut Product were sold to two different registered dealers by issuing two tax invoices, were being transported to its destination and the same were along with tax invoices & e-way bill. The said goods were intercepted by the proper officer on 9.10.2019 around 17:33 hours at Varanasi. On the physical verification, three bags of Betel N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re going and there were any discrepancy with regard to any of the consignment, the consignment as a whole has to be seized and therefore tries to justify the seizure order and demand of security. 6. The Court has heard the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner have sold the goods to two different registered dealers. The petitioner being a registered dealer have duly issued two tax invoices of the goods in question. The authorities have not disputed the issuance of tax invoices. An adverse view has been drawn that after interception, another tax invoice for three bags of Betel Nut Product in favour of M/s Lal Ji Pan Bhandar, Tikona Park, Nawabganj, Gonda have been submitted along with the reply to the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 38, there was no requirement for generating of e-way bill to the said transaction. If the authorities were of the opinion that the transaction were not duly recorded in the books of account or had committed any contravention of the provisions of the Act, they are well equipped with all the provisions to make an inspection/survey at the business premises of the petitioner in accordance with law but the authorities were not justified in detaining / seizing and demanding the security of the goods as documents accompanying the goods as well as submitted along with the reply fully covers the transaction in question and by no stretch of imagination it can be attributed any contravention of the provisions of UPGST Act or Rule. 9. The submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reply of the show cause notice but the authorities below were not justified in detaining / seizing the goods and demanding of security as there was no contravention of the provision of the Act. The authorities have illegal and in arbitrary manner have referred the various discrepancies such as the pouches were not having batch number, packing date, expiry date, manufacturing date and referred that under the Food Safety Regulation, the said dates / details were required. But so far as the G.S.T. is concerned, the authorities have failed to record any provision for justification of the seizure of the goods in question. 13. A pointed query was put to Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned Standing Counsel to show the provisions on the said gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
