TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Discrepancy in Quantity Resolved, Unjustified Penalty Removed, Goods Released with Security</h1> <h3>M/s Maa Vindhyavasini Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of U.P. & 3 Others</h3> The court resolved the discrepancy in quantity but found the penalty imposed for the delayed journey start date unjustified. The petitioner was granted ... Seizure of goods - discrepancy in the quantity - also, penalty imposed on the ground that the goods, started their journey one week after the date of the invoice - Held that: - discrepancy as regards quantity has been resolved and it is accepted to the department that the quantity of goods as disclosed in the documents is the same as found on physical verification - also, reason for which penalty imposed, prima facie cannot be the ground to seize the goods or to impose penalty. Subject to the petitioner furnishing security equal to the value of the goods and tax payable, in the form of indemnity bond, the vehicle along with goods shall be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith - petition allowed. Issues: Seizure of goods based on quantity discrepancy and delayed journey start date, imposition of penalty.Analysis:- The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Bharati Sapru and Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, JJ. The petitioner was represented by Shubham Agrawal, while the respondent was represented by C.S.C., A.S.G.I.- The goods were seized on two grounds: a discrepancy in quantity and a delay in the start of the goods' journey after the invoice date. The quantity issue was resolved, confirming that the disclosed quantity matched the physical verification. However, the penalty was imposed due to the delayed journey start, which was deemed insufficient grounds for seizure or penalty.- Sri C.B.Tripathi, the learned standing counsel for the revenue, was granted three weeks to file a counter affidavit, with the petitioner given one week thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit.- The court ordered the release of the vehicle and goods to the petitioner upon furnishing security equal to the goods' value and tax payable in the form of an indemnity bond. The next hearing was scheduled for 24.01.2018, with Sri Prem Shankar Prasad listed as counsel for the respondents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
