SUNAIBA INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Subham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the selling dealer of the goods. The goods were being transported from Delhi to Kanpur in 30 builties. Only on account of improper invoice in respect of some of the builites, the goods have been seized and directed to be released on furnishing security and indemnity bond as provided under Section 129 (1) (b) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short of the Act).

(3.) The only submission of Sri Subham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is admittedly the owner of the goods and therefore for the purposes of release,deposit/security and indemnity bond in accordance with the provisions of Section 129 (1) (a) of the Act alone could have been demanded.