2019 (4) TMI 148

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... E R The petitioner has challenged the seizure order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 13.2.2019 under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('Act' for short). 2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of providing earth moving services in the name and style of 'Sri Sai Balaji Diggers'. It is contended that an e-way bill bearing No.1910 8302 4307 was generated by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order passed by the respondent No.4 before the Appellate Authority and paid 10% of the disputed penalty/ tax and requested the respondent No.4 to release the vehicle on the ground that an appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Act, but in vain. Being aggrieved, this writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel Sri.V.G.S. Narayanan for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....veyance.   5. Learned counsel Sri.Vikram Huilgol appearing for the Revenue justifying the impugned order submitted that in view of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority is bound to examine the genuineness of the pleadings made inasmuch as the mismatching of eway bill. In such circumstances, initiating the parallel proceedings by the petitioner by filing writ petitio....