9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 890 - HC - GSTRelease of goods - contention of petitioner is that despite the fact that the petitioner has deposited the entire amount of proposed tax and penalty in accordance with Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 still the goods are not being released - Held that - The respondent no. 4 has no authority in law to dictate respondent no. 3 in such a manner. Issuance of such direction by respondent no. 4 is blatantly illegal and without any authority of law. The Custom Department has not passed any order of detention/confiscation of the said goods under the Customs Act. The respondents directed to release the goods and vehicle in favour of the petitioner forthwith and report about the compliance within three days on affidavit.
Issues: Seizure of goods in transit; Authority to detain goods; Compliance with GST Act; Illegal directions by respondent; Customs Act procedures.
In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner, a registered purchasing dealer under Goods and Services Tax, had their betel nuts in transit seized by the respondents due to suspicions of non-existence of both the petitioner and the selling dealer. However, it was noted that the registration of both parties was not alleged to be fictitious or revoked. The petitioner's counsel argued that despite depositing the tax and penalty as per Section 129(1)(a) of the U.P. GST Act, the goods were not being released. The court observed that the respondent no. 4 had unlawfully directed respondent no. 3 not to release the goods, which was deemed illegal as respondent no. 4 lacked the authority to issue such directives. Moreover, it was highlighted that the Customs Department had not issued any detention or confiscation order under the Customs Act regarding the goods. Therefore, the High Court directed the respondents to release the goods and the vehicle to the petitioner immediately, with a requirement for compliance reporting within three days via affidavit. The judgment further scheduled a hearing for the respondent no. 4 from the Customs Department to appear in person before the Court on a specified date. The decision emphasized the importance of following legal procedures and refraining from unauthorized actions in matters of goods seizure and release, ensuring adherence to the provisions of relevant statutes.
|
