2019 (7) TMI 1329

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervices Tax (GST) in seizing the consignment of goods, which were coming from Panipat (Haryana) to Lucknow. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner no.1 is the seller of the goods (cloud check) and is a registered dealer under GST having GSTIN 06AMUPK3123C1ZA. The said goods were sold by the petitioner no.1 to the Vision Luxuries, which were loaded on the vehicle (Truck) of petitioner no.2, who is owner of the same. The consignment of goods was duly patronaged by the requisite docments viz. tax invoice and bilties. The value of such goods was also declared. On 06.06.2019, opposite party no.3/Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Department, Mobile Squad-2, Lucknow has passed (MOV-06) detention order under Section 129 (1) of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is violation of the provisions of law. It is imperative to note here that the consignment in question was still in transit and the goods were not delivered to the buyer. Further, the consideration with respect to such consignment has not been received yet by the petitioner no.1 and conspicuously, the supply of the goods is not concluded. The petitioner no.1 continues to be owner of the goods and there cannot be said to be any contravention of Section 129 of the UPGST Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments :- Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Hindustan Liver Limited and Another vs. The Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh, 117 (2014) CLT 99 has held as under :- "16. If th....