2016 (6) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bhatia JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph, CJ. Appellant is the writ petitioner. Two writ petitions were filed by the appellant / writ petitioner. Mr. S.K. Posti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / writ petitioner does not dispute that the prayers in both the writ petitions are the same. The prayers made in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1967 of 2015 are as follows: "i) issue a suitable w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e all subjected to tax under the CST. While the goods were being transported, the vehicles were detained by the authority under the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). A show-cause was issued and the appellant / writ petitioner submitted its reply; but the appellant / writ petitioner has been asked to deposit the security amount for release of the goods. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ction 48 of the Act read with Rule 30 of the Uttarakhand VAT Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), was not accompanying the goods. According to the learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner, a perusal of Section 48 of the Act, along with Rule 30 of the Rules, would show that it is not applicable in the case of the appellant / writ petitioner. According to the appellant / ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellant / writ petitioner is not a registered dealer, as he is not doing any intra-State sale in the State of Uttarakhand. 6. The learned Brief Holder appearing for the State would, in fact, point out that, when the vehicle was intercepted, it was not accompanied by the sale bills. The learned counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner, in fact, sought to dispute that contention by pointing ....