9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 26 - HC - GSTValidity of detention order - seizure of goods - computation of penalty as per Section 129 of the Act, 2017 - Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has an apprehension that the Adjudicatory Authority would proceed for sale of goods under Section 129 (6) of the Act, 2017 in case the time taken in filing of the appeal and the decision thereon - On the instructions received, learned Standing Counsel states that the respondent has agreed to the extent that in case the appeal is filed by the petitioner by complying the conditions of Section 107 of the Act, 2017, the seized goods and the vehicle would not be sold till the disposal of the appeal. It is an admitted fact of the matter that seized goods are not perishable in nature. There are no good ground to entertain the writ petition but in view of the assertions made, the writ petition is disposed of with the observations that, in case, the petitioner files an appeal by complying the conditions of Section 107 of the Act, 2017 within a period of three days from today, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Detention order under Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 2. Order under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017 3. Seizure of goods and computation of penalty under Section 129 of the Act, 2017 4. Remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017 5. Concerns regarding sale of goods under Section 129(6) of the Act, 2017 6. Agreement regarding non-sale of seized goods and vehicle during appeal 7. Nature of seized goods 8. Disposal of the writ petition Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the detention order under Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017, dated 17.5.2022, and the subsequent order dated 21.5.2022 under Section 129(3) of the Act. The dispute raised concerns the legality and validity of these orders. 2. Another significant issue raised is related to the seizure of goods and the computation of penalty under Section 129 of the Act, 2017. The petitioner contested the actions taken regarding the seized goods and the penalty calculation, seeking redressal through legal avenues. 3. The judgment highlights the availability of a remedy for the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act, 2017. The court emphasized that this appeal process provides a comprehensive mechanism to address all grievances raised by the petitioner. 4. An important concern expressed was the potential sale of goods under Section 129(6) of the Act, 2017, in case of delays in filing the appeal and its resolution. Both parties acknowledged this apprehension and reached an agreement to prevent the sale of seized goods and the vehicle pending appeal. 5. The court noted that the seized goods were not perishable, reinforcing the decision to ensure the non-disposal of these goods during the appeal process. This consideration played a crucial role in the final disposition of the writ petition. 6. Ultimately, despite finding no strong grounds to entertain the writ petition, the court disposed of the case with specific observations. The petitioner was directed to file an appeal within three days under Section 107 of the Act, 2017, with the Appellate Authority instructed to decide the appeal promptly and in accordance with the law. 7. The judgment concluded by emphasizing that the seized goods and the vehicle subject to dispute should not be disposed of by the Adjudicatory Authority, reaffirming the agreement between the parties to maintain the status quo until the appeal process is completed.
|
