9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 86 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods - imposition of penalty under Section 129(3) of UPGST Act - details of the purchasers/buyers situated at different places in Kanpur are incomplete, as has been mentioned both in invoices as well as in goods receipt - maintainability of petition - Held that - There are several disputed question of facts involved in the present writ petition and in our opinion the same can be appropriately adjudicated by the authorities including the appellate authority - the petitioner has not disputed that the impugned order is appealable. There are no hesitation to dismiss the writ petition at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum/appellate authority in accordance with law - petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to seizure order and penalty proceedings under UPGST Act; Release of seized goods and vehicle; Identity of unregistered buyers; Nature of goods as 'PARCHUN GOODS'; Allegation of tax evasion; Disputed questions of fact; Appealability of impugned order. Analysis: The High Court heard a writ petition challenging a seizure order and penalty proceedings under the UPGST Act. The petitioners, situated in Delhi, sought release of their seized goods and vehicle. The goods in question were sold to unregistered parties in Kanpur, with incomplete details of the buyers provided in the invoices and goods receipt. The petitioners admitted that the buyers were unregistered, raising doubts about their identity. The respondent initiated proceedings under Section 129(1) of UPGST, seizing the goods and vehicle on grounds of tax evasion due to the nature of the goods as 'PARCHUN GOODS', loose items transported without proper documentation. The Court noted disputed facts and suggested adjudication by the authorities, including the appellate authority. The petitioners did not contest the appealability of the impugned order, leading the Court to dismiss the writ petition with liberty for the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum or appellate authority as per the law. The Court found no merit in the petition, emphasizing the need for the petitioners to raise their grievances before the relevant appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merit, directing the petitioners to seek redressal through the proper channels.
|
