2020 (2) TMI 1109 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods - release of seized goods - evasion of GST - petitioner has one declared godown and three undeclared godowns and stocks were also found at the undeclared godowns during seizure - not maintaining the Account Book / Stock Register - HELD THAT - The facts, as revealed in the counter affidavit, clearly reflect upon the conduct of the writ petitioner post seizure of its goods. Till date, no TRAN-1 has been submitted by the writ petitioner. The enquiry preceding seizure has revealed that the petitioner has one declared godown and three undeclared godowns and stocks were also found at the undeclared godowns during seizure. As such, proceedings have been initiated under section 67 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, read with Rule 139 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. It is noticed that consequent upon proceedings initiated by the concerned respondent authority, the writ petitioner never deposited any tax or penalty or bond or security, as required under section 67 (6) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Notices / summonses have been issued but no one appeared on behalf of the writ petitioner on the date fixed - So far as the rejoinder affidavit is concerned, the stand of the writ petitioner, as contained therein, is evasive and vague. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to seizure order dated 10th May, 2018 and release of seized goods.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner challenged a seizure order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, alleging irregularities in tax evasion and maintenance of accounts. The counter affidavit by the State revealed that the petitioner had not submitted TRAN-1 till date. The enquiry disclosed one declared and three undeclared godowns with stocks found at the undeclared ones. Proceedings were initiated under section 67 (2) of the UPGST Act, 2017, and Rule 139 (1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Rules, 2017. Despite notices and summonses, the petitioner did not deposit any required tax, penalty, bond, or security as per section 67 (6) of the Act. The petitioner's stand in the rejoinder affidavit was considered evasive and vague.

The High Court, after considering the facts and conduct of the petitioner post-seizure, found no grounds to provide relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's failure to comply with legal requirements and appear on scheduled dates led to the dismissal of the writ petition. The judgment upheld the seizure order and denied the release of the seized goods based on the petitioner's non-compliance and lack of substantive response to the allegations.