2024 (4) TMI 525 - HC - GST

Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - initiation of the proceedings of penalty against the petitioner - HELD THAT - In the present case the appeal under Section 107 of the Act was not admitted being barred by limitation. Under these circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court on the ground that the very initiation of the proceedings of penalty against the petitioner was void ab initio and accordingly the said proceedings should be quashed and set aside - it is clear that the penalty could not have been imposed during the particular period with regard to the technical defects as indicated in the detention order. The detention order and the impugned penalty order are required to be quashed and set-aside - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues in this case involve challenging orders passed under Sections 129(2) and 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the initiation of penalty proceedings which were deemed void ab initio due to technical defects.

Order dated December 13, 2017 and December 15, 2017:
The impugned orders were passed under Sections 129(2) and 129(3) of the Act. The petitioner contested that due to successive changes in notifications during the relevant period, compliance became challenging for field authorities. The Division Bench highlighted the confusion caused by rapid legislative changes and ruled that the authorities failed to observe the correct provisions. Consequently, the Court found the seizure orders and show-cause notices issued as not sustainable in law.

Order dated August 11, 2023:
The petitioner approached the Court as the appeal under Section 107 of the Act was not admitted due to being time-barred. It was argued that the initiation of penalty proceedings was void ab initio. Citing previous judgments, the Court concluded that penalties could not have been imposed during the specific period due to technical defects outlined in the detention order.

Judgment:
The Court quashed and set aside the detention order and the impugned penalty order, based on the findings that penalties could not have been imposed during the relevant period due to technical defects. Consequently, the orders dated December 13, 2017, December 15, 2017, and August 11, 2023 were also quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. Consequential reliefs were directed to follow.