Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Premium Traders Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Writ Tax No. 582 of 2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/04/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Premium Traders Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)

It is admitted case of the respondents that the invoice accompanied with the goods in question was issued by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent no.3 has committed a manifest error of law not to afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner despite persuasion made by the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order under Section 129(1)(b) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.03.2022, under Section 129 of CGST/UPGST Act, can not be sustained and is hereby quashed.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned standing counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner is a trader of iron and steel. According to the petitioner he sold 10090 Kg TMT Bar valued at Rs.4,16,717/- to M/s. Umar Enterprises, Ghaziabad, through invoice No.747, dated 04.03.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that he and the buyer both are registered dealers. The aforesaid goods were not accompanied with e-Way Bill during transportation. Consequently, it was intercepted and an interception memo in FORM GST MOV 02 dated 04.03.2022 was issued. The detention order under Section 129(1) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, dated 5.03.2022 was issued in the name of the driver in FORM GST MOV 06. The goods were detained on three grounds, firstly, it was not accompanied with e-Way Bill, secondly, under valuation and thirdly, GSTIN number is not mentioned on the invoice and, therefore, invoice is bogus. In the detention order, which was issued by the respondent no.3 in the name of the driver, namely, Schin Kumar; it was directed to produce particulars of purchases and sales and copy of periodical return. An undated notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 was issued in the name of the driver, namely Sachin Kumar, without fixing any date either for submitting reply or for personal hearing.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031