TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained, even otherwise, the reference to the powers under Section 68, only a power vests with the respondent authorities to inspect the goods in movement, however, the facts remain that the entire foundation for passing the order was not carrying the TDS-01 form, which issued was duly considered and decided by this Court in the case of M/S GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., L.G. ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT. LTD., BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED, M/S GUALA CLOSURES (INDIA) PVT. LTD., M/S. RAS POLYTEX PVT. LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED, M/S. GAURANG PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., M/S. ADITYA BIRLA FASHION AND RETAIL LTD., M/S. NAVYUG AIRCONDITIONING AND M/S. PROACTIVE PLAST PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND 02 OTHERS AND STATE OF U.P. AND ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Memo dated 17.12.2017 and subsequently thereto, the goods were physically verified and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.12.2017. The reasons for detention as elaborated in the order dated 27.12.2017 are that no TDF-01 form was not downloaded for carrying the goods from one State to another. It was also recorded that the goods are being transported to one Guru Nanak Institute of Technology who had no GST number. It was also recorded that the transportation of such huge quantity of PVC Panel and Angle to an institution made the whole transport suspected. The goods were also physically verified and a prima facie view was formed that the PVC Panel admeasuring 4500 sq.mt. are physically present whereas in the invoice, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing Company Limited vs State of U.P. and others (Writ Tax No.587 of 2018) , decided on 18.09.2018 and the same was further noticed by this Court in the case of M/s H.B.L. Power Systems Limited vs State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.33211 of 2018) , decided on 27.07.2022. 8 . Learned Standing Counsel, in all fairness while places reliance on the circular issued by the State of U.P. itself as is annexed as Annexure-CA-1 argues that in movement, the goods were not carrying the E-way Bill, the authority carrying the goods would be called upon to upload the E-way Bill. The action of the respondent in the present case is contrary to the circular issued by the State Government. 10 . The facts as led to the passing of the abovesaid two jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
