2018 (6) TMI 108 - HC - GST

Alternative remedy of appeal - Penalty in excess of 50% of value of goods - section 129 (1) (b) of UPGST Act - Release of seized goods on furnishing of security for applicable tax and additional penalty - Held that - Against the order dated 30.11.2017 the petitioner has an statutory efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 109 A of the Rules - the instant writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case, the petitioner files an appeal against the order dated 30.11.2017 within the next one week from today, the same shall be heard and decided in accordance with law by the appellate authority within a period of one month therefrom. The vehicle being Truck bearing Registration No.U.P. 21 BN 5211 on which the goods were found loaded may be released forthwith without demanding any security from the petitioner - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ of certiorari to quash notice and order under UPGST Act
2. Writ of mandamus to release seized goods and vehicle
3. Availability of statutory appeal remedy under U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash a notice dated 22.11.2017 issued under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act and an order dated 30.11.2017 directing the petitioner to deposit a penalty exceeding 50% of the value of goods, contrary to section 129(1)(b) of the Act. The petitioner also requested a writ of mandamus to release the seized goods upon furnishing security for applicable tax and an additional penalty as per the Act. The court noted that against the order dated 30.11.2017, the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within one week, it should be heard and decided by the appellate authority within one month.

2. The court further directed the immediate release of the truck bearing Registration No. U.P. 21 BN 5211, on which the goods were found loaded, without requiring any security from the petitioner. This decision was made in light of the petitioner's compliance with the appeal process and the availability of the statutory remedy under the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were imposed on any party.

3. The judgment emphasized the importance of utilizing the statutory appeal mechanism provided under the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, highlighting that the appellate authority had been constituted by the State. By availing this statutory remedy, the petitioner could address the issues raised in the writ petition through a formal appeal process, ensuring a proper legal review and decision within the specified timeframe. The court's decision to dispose of the writ petition with specific directions regarding the appeal process and the release of the seized vehicle demonstrated a balanced approach to addressing the legal issues raised by the petitioner effectively.