9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 47 - HC - GSTSeizure of goods alongwith vehicle - seeking direction to respondent no. 3 to make available the copy of the order passed under Section 129(3) in due compliance of Section 129(4) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act pertaining to the seizure of goods covered by notice dated 21.01.2022 issued under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act - seeking consequential orders under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - HELD THAT - Admittedly a notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was issued by the respondent no. 3 to the petitioner. Pursuant thereto the petitioner deposited the amount on his own in form GST DRC-03 and intimated it to the respondent no. 3. Therefore, the respondent no. 3 has issued an order in form GST DRC-05. Thus, proceedings in respect of the aforesaid notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act stood concluded in terms of mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 129. Hence, relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted since the matter is concluded as per legislative mandate. Once the proceedings in respect of notice under Section 129(3) of the Act stood concluded in terms of Section 129(5) of the Act read with Rule 142(3) of the Rules, no mandamus can be issued to the respondent no. 3 to pass an order under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST/IGST Act. The contention of the petitioner that a copy of the order under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST/IGST, Act be provided to him, is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the proceedings stood concluded in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 129 read with Rule 142 (3) of the Rules and, therefore, no mandamus contrary to law can be issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
- Interpretation of Section 129(3) and (5) of the CGST Act - Compliance with Rule 142(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - Request for mandamus to provide a copy of the order under Section 129(3) - Relief sought for passing consequential orders under Section 129(3) Interpretation of Section 129(3) and (5) of the CGST Act: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent to provide a copy of the order passed under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner's goods were detained by the respondent, and after depositing the demanded amount, the goods were released. The court examined the relevant provisions of Section 129(3) and (5) of the CGST Act. It was observed that once the petitioner deposited the amount demanded under Section 129(3) and the proper officer issued an order in response, the proceedings stood concluded as per the legislative mandate. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted as per the statutory provisions. Compliance with Rule 142(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017: The court also considered Rule 142(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which outlines the procedure for concluding proceedings after the payment of tax, interest, or penalty. The rule mandates that upon payment, the person must intimate the proper officer, who shall then issue an order concluding the proceedings. In the present case, the petitioner had complied with the requirements by depositing the amount and informing the respondent. Consequently, the respondent issued an order in compliance with the rule, leading to the conclusion of the proceedings related to the notice under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. Request for mandamus to provide a copy of the order under Section 129(3): The petitioner had also requested a mandamus to direct the respondent to provide a copy of the order passed under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act. However, the court held that since the proceedings had already concluded in accordance with the statutory provisions, no mandamus could be issued to the respondent to pass an order under Section 129(3) of the CGST/UPGST/IGST Act. The court emphasized that the relief sought by the petitioner was misconceived as the matter had been concluded as per the legal requirements. Relief sought for passing consequential orders under Section 129(3): Lastly, the court addressed the petitioner's plea for a mandamus directing the respondent to pass consequential orders under Section 129(3) after affording an opportunity for a hearing. The court dismissed this contention, stating that once the proceedings under Section 129(3) had concluded as per the statutory provisions, no mandamus contrary to the law could be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition was ultimately dismissed by the court based on the above considerations.
|
