Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court)
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

VSL Alloys (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court)

In the present case, all the documents were accompanied the goods, details are duly mentioned which reflects from the perusal of the documents. Merely of none mentioning of the vehicle no. in Part-B of E-Way Bill cannot be a ground for seizure of the goods. We hold that the order of seizure is totally illegal and once the petitioner has placed the material and evidence with regard to its claim, it was obligatory on the part of the respondent no.2 to conside

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.

4 Comments

  1. Ajfar says:

    My vehicle seized by sales tax department because in the part B section of eway bill my vehicle number was not updated by the Transporter . The vehicle number mentioned in it was the other vehicle number that was collected item from pick up location to hub. The material value is Rs 368000. And the sales tax department is charging tax + penalty amount as 116000. The rest all documents was cleared at the time of transportation. Can anyone suggest any solution .

  2. jagdish says:

    I am given my consignment to my vendor and we also given eway bill but vehicle owrner changed vehicle no without my knowledge and now vehicle detained due to change vehicle no in ewaybill
    please suggest what to do 8080046821

  3. Raju says:

    In this case if dealer has appraised the officer that these goods are for further shipment through transport company and the transport is well within 50 kms, the officer may not issue the notice and did not pass the order.

  4. CA Ashok Malhotra says:

    It is clear from the above judgement that the businessman has followed the CGST Act and Rules, but the Officer has not followed the Act and Rules.

    In case penal provisions can be initiated against the businessman, why same penal provisions cannot be initiated against the officer of the department for not following the Act and Rules.

    There should be accountability on officer and compensation to the businessman for the loss and cost due to the negligence of the officer.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Sponsored
Sponsored
Ads Free tax News and Updates
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
April 2025
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930