2018 (5) TMI 1030

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uential order under Section 129(3) (Annexure 1 and 2) passed y respondent no.3 on the same i.e. 5.5.2018. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.3 and his agents, to release the Vehicle No. UP13AT-1153, without insisting for deposit of any amount of tax/penalty." The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered firm and is engaged in business of Iron and Steel goods. Certain goods of the aforesaid nature were sold to one M/s Arjun Dev & Company, Delhi, who is also a registered company against the invoice No. 0003 dated 5.4.2018 after charging IGST @ 18%. The goods were handed over to the transporter who has loaded the same in a vehicle No. UP 13 AT 1153 on 4.5.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notice under Section 129(3) of the UPGST Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued requiring the petitioner to deposit the tax as well as the penalty to the tune of Rs. 46,119/- each. An order under Section 129(3) was also passed on the same day i.e. 5.5.2018 in which no time has not been mentioned by the respondent no.3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the impugned seizure order as well as the order passed under Section 129(3) are completely without jurisdiction, arbitrary as such are nothing but clearly a misuse of power by the respondent no.3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent decision of this Court in the case of Axpress Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India an....