9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 300 - HC - GSTDetention of goods alongwith vehicle - entire proceedings of search and seizure of the goods is in violation of the provisions of U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and the rules, or not - HELD THAT - The remedy before the petitioner is to file appeal under Section 107 of U.P.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. Act, 2017 against the order passed under Section 129 whereunder the proper officer detaining or seizing goods passed order for payment of penalty under Clause (a) and (b) of Sub Section (1). In the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, all factual issues being raised herein can very well be agitated before the appellate authority. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of U.P.G.S.T. Act regarding search and seizure of goods. Analysis: The writ petition challenges the order passed under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, alleging violations of the provisions and rules. The petitioner argues that the seizure memo was served at the time of interception, but the copy of the detention order in FORM GST MOV-06 was not provided. However, the respondent contends that the FORM GST MOV-06 was indeed served on the custodian of goods/driver, refuting the petitioner's claim of non-service. The petitioner, claiming ownership of the goods, asserts that the seizure order was not served on the custodian/driver as he was not present during interception. The petitioner further argues that the detention of goods must comply with Section 129(1) and cannot be arbitrary. Allegations of differences in signatures between documents are cited as grounds for detention. The respondent revenue's counsel states that under Section 129(3), it was determined that the petitioner is not the goods' owner, leading to the penalty imposition under Section 129(1)(b). The court notes that the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P.G.S.T. and C.G.S.T. Act against the order for penalty under Section 129(1)(a) and (b) issued by the detaining officer. The court emphasizes that all factual issues raised can be addressed before the appellate authority, providing an alternative remedy for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, directing the petitioner to pursue the available appeal process under the GST Acts to challenge the penalty order.
|
