2021 (9) TMI 724 - HC - GST

Validity of seizure order - Section 129(3) of U.P. GST Act, 2017 - petitioner prays that the petitioner may be permitted to institute and/or pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the present petition - HELD THAT - In identical matter the issue travelled to the Supreme Court in THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ORS. VERSUS M/S KAY PAN FRAGRANCE PVT. LTD. 2019 (12) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that There are no hesitation in observing that the High Court in all such cases ought to have relegated the assessees before the appropriate Authority for complying with the procedure prescribed in Section 67 of the Act read with Rules as applicable for release (including provisional release) of seized goods. The present proceedings are found to have been terminated by the Supreme Court - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash seizure order under U.P. GST Act 2017 and consequential notice.

Analysis:
The petition sought a writ to quash the seizure order and notice issued under Section 129(1) and 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act 2017. The Standing Counsel for the State referred to a Supreme Court order in a similar matter, stating that all writ petitions on this issue were deemed disposed of. The Supreme Court aimed to prevent inconsistency in applying the law and avoid multiple appeals. Consequently, the matter in question was concluded based on the Supreme Court's order.

The petitioner's counsel requested permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The State's counsel did not object to this request as long as the remedy was availed in accordance with the law. The court noted that the proceedings had been terminated by the Supreme Court based on the facts presented. As a result, the present petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal if done in compliance with the law.