2021 (7) TMI 746 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods - submission of the petitioner is that the goods were duly accounted for and accompanied by valid documents but in arbitrary manner the same were seized - HELD THAT - All the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Petitioner shall have two weeks, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit - In the meanwhile, subject to the petitioner depositing tax and 50% of penalty as well as furnishing security of remaining amount of penalty other than cash and bank guarantee, after adjusting the 10% amount which has already been deposited, within a period of three weeks from today, in the prescribed manner and in terms of Section 129(1)(a) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 read with Rules 140 of UPGST Rules, 2017, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, pursuant to orders impugned. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against multiple tax orders passed by different authorities.
2. Delay in filing First Appeal and request for condonation.
3. Seizure of goods and imposition of tax and penalty.
4. Dispute regarding service of order on the petitioner.
5. Granting time for filing counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged orders passed by various tax authorities, seeking relief against the imposition of tax and penalty. The petition requested the Additional Commissioner to condone the delay in filing the First Appeal and restore the appeal to its original number. The matter pertained to the release of goods seized by authorities and subsequent imposition of tax and penalty.

2. The petitioner argued that the goods were lawfully documented, but seized arbitrarily. A previous writ petition had directed the release of goods upon certain conditions. Despite compliance, the petitioner received a notice to deposit the tax and penalty. The petitioner's appeal against the penalty order was rejected on grounds of limitation. A recovery notice was issued for the remaining tax liability.

3. The petitioner contended that the order was served arbitrarily by pasting it on the vehicle, which was deemed sufficient by the authorities. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument. The court acknowledged the need for further consideration.

4. The State respondents were granted time to file a counter affidavit, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to file a rejoinder affidavit. The court directed the petitioner to deposit a portion of the tax and penalty, along with providing security, to avoid coercive action. The procedure for filing and verifying orders was outlined to ensure authenticity.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges against tax orders, delay in appeal filing, seizure of goods, service of orders, and procedural timelines for filing affidavits and making payments to prevent coercive action. The court emphasized the need for proper documentation and compliance with statutory provisions.