9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1329 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods - Section 129 (3) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 - Held that - An interim protection is granted to the petitioner by directing for release of the seized goods along with the vehicle on furnishing of bank guarantee to the tune of ₹ 5,00000/- - goods and vehicle are released forthwith on furnishing of bank guarantee. Constitution of appellate Tribunal - case of petitioner is that it is only the union to constitute the appellate Tribunal and not alone the State of U.P. - Held that - This Court finds that in any case the constitution of the Tribunal is necessary and in this regard earlier also this Court has issued the directions for the constitution of the Tribunal - Surprisingly even after completion of one year from the date of introduction of the GST no appellate Tribunal has been constituted. Case listed for hearing next as on 2.8.2018.
Issues:
1. Constitution of the appellate Tribunal under the U.P. GST Act. 2. Seizure proceedings and penalty under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. GST Act. 3. Appeal process under Section 107 (1) of the U.P. GST Act. 4. Non-establishment of the appellate Tribunal by the Union of India. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the proceedings under Section 129 (3) of the U.P. GST Act, contending that the appellate Tribunal required for appeals under Sections 109, 110, 111, and 112 of the Act had not been constituted by the respondent State or the Union of India. The Court noted the necessity of the Tribunal's constitution and directed the Principal Secretary (Tax and Institutional Registration) to provide details on the non-establishment of the Tribunal and steps taken. An interim protection was granted to the petitioner, releasing the seized goods and vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee of ?5,00,000. The Court emphasized the importance of the Tribunal's formation even a year after the GST introduction. 2. The petitioner, a seller, faced seizure and penalty after goods were intercepted without an E-way bill during transportation. The penalty order under Section 129 (3) was upheld by the Appellate Authority, directing the petitioner to deposit the disputed amount. The petitioner appealed under Section 107 (1) of the U.P. GST Act, challenging the penalty. The High Court, considering the absence of the appellate Tribunal, provided interim relief by releasing the goods upon a bank guarantee, pending further proceedings. 3. The appeal process under Section 107 (1) of the U.P. GST Act was invoked by the petitioner against the penalty order upheld by the Appellate Authority. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contentions regarding the absence of the appellate Tribunal and directed the respondent to provide necessary details on the Tribunal's establishment. The petitioner was granted interim protection, allowing the release of seized goods and the vehicle upon furnishing a bank guarantee. 4. The non-establishment of the appellate Tribunal by the Union of India was a crucial issue highlighted by the Court. Despite the provisions in the U.P. GST Act for the Tribunal's constitution, the absence of the Tribunal raised concerns. The Court directed the Principal Secretary to submit an affidavit detailing the reasons for the Tribunal's non-establishment and the actions taken by the authorities. The Court emphasized the importance of the Tribunal's formation for effective adjudication of GST-related matters.
|
