TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 10,46,780/- as tax and a further penalty of Rs. 10,46,780/- as well as the Appellate Order dated 06.11.2018, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a dealer duly registered under the provisions of G.S.T. Laws and has its principal place of business in the State of U.P. at Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. The petitioner is involved in the business of manufacturing, sale, supply and installation of renewable energy systems, batteries etc. He further states that Modern Coach Factory, Raebareli, which is a Government of India undertaking, has placed purchase order upon the Hyderabad Office of the petitioner on 27.12.2017 for purchase of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spended its E-way bill, the requirement of the State E-way bill stood revived automatically and as the petitioner was not carrying the State E-way bill, the seizure order came to be passed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner submitted a reply highlighting that the tax has been paid and were accompanied by an E-way bill on the portal of the C.G.S.T. Despite the reply of the petitioner, an order came to be passed directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,46,780/- as tax and Rs. 10,46,780/- as penalty under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. G.S.T. Act. The petitioner has submitted a bank guarantee for the total amount of Rs. 20,93,560/- and in pursuance to the said bank guarantee, the goods were released to the petitioner. The petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ading Co and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others), placing reliance on the 22nd Meeting of the G.S.T. Council held on 6th October, 2017 to the effect that E-way bill shall not be demanded till 31st March, 2018, had passed an order in favour of the petitioners therein. He further argues that in any case admittedly the goods were being transported from Telangana to Uttar Pradesh and thus there was no liability upon the petitioner to pay the tax under the U.P. G.S.T. Act, as it was a case of inter-state transfer of goods. He further argues that in any event, the fact remains that the petitioner had deposited the tax and had taken an E-way bill also, thus, the levy of penalty was not at all justified. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand....