Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1263 - HC - GSTIssues involved: Distinction in decision regarding seizure or detention memo under Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 and appealability of penalty order. Seizure or Detention Memo Issue: The judgment highlighted a point of distinction raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue regarding the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. The counsel argued that elaboration of the seizure or detention memo under Section 129(1) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017 is permissible at the stage of issuance of notice under Section 129(3) of the said Act. This indicates the importance of providing detailed information during the issuance of such notices to ensure clarity and compliance with the law. Appealability of Penalty Order Issue: The counsel also contended that the impugned penalty order is appellable and that the forum of appeal is available. This assertion emphasizes the legal right of the concerned parties to challenge penalty orders through the appropriate appeal process, ensuring a fair and transparent mechanism for addressing disputes related to penalties imposed under the U.P.G.S.T. Act, 2017. Next Steps: In response to the arguments presented, the court decided to put the matter up as fresh on 21.5.2024, as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This indicates the court's willingness to further examine the issues raised and potentially make a decision or provide further directions in the upcoming hearing.
|