2020 (4) TMI 189 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods - Section 129 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 - contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 25.9.2019 could not have been passed under Section 129(3) Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He contends that the penalty could have been imposed only under Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. HELD THAT - Put up this case as fresh on 27.2.2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Seizure of goods under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Legality of the order dated 25.9.2018 under Section 129(3) of the Act.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 122 of the Act.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to the seizure of goods under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's goods were seized following an interception, leading to proceedings that resulted in an order dated 25.9.2018 under Section 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court for the release of goods, and a direction was given on 9.10.2018 for release upon depositing 50% of the demanded amount. Notably, the goods and vehicle had already been released before the final order on 25.9.2018.

2. The legality of the order dated 25.9.2018 under Section 129(3) of the Act is questioned by the petitioner's counsel. It is contended that the penalty imposed in the said order should have been under Section 122 of the Act, rather than Section 129(3). The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed on 25.11.2019 due to a delay, prompting the filing of the instant writ petition challenging the order.

3. The key contention raised by the petitioner's counsel revolves around the imposition of the penalty under Section 129(3) instead of Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court directed the learned Standing Counsel to examine this legal proposition, indicating a need for further scrutiny on the appropriate legal provisions governing the penalty in such cases. The case was scheduled for a fresh hearing on 27.2.2020 to delve deeper into the legal aspects raised by the petitioner's counsel.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the seizure of goods, the legality of the order under Section 129(3) of the Act, and the imposition of penalties under the relevant provisions, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and contentions put forth before the Allahabad High Court.