2021 (11) TMI 1014 - HC - GST

Seizure of goods alongwith vehicle - in the e-way bill, the vehicle number was not mentioned - Section 109 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - maintainability of second appeal provided for under the provisions of Section 112 of the Act - HELD THAT - Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the order passed under Section 129(3)(Form GST MOV-9) in which the amount of tax and penalty have been assessed by the authority concerned. It is contended that the entire amount of tax so assessed in the aforesaid order under Section 129(3) of the Act, has been paid in full. Evidence whereof has been enclosed by way of challan and corresponding statements have been made in paragraphs 10, 17 and 23 of the writ petition. Matter requires consideration.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Non-mention of vehicle number in e-way bill leading to interception and seizure order.
2. Challenge regarding the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 109 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
3. Requirement of pre-deposit for maintainability of appeal under sub-section (8) of Section 112 of the Act.
4. Payment of tax and penalty assessed under Section 129(3) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's counsel argued that while transporting goods to Hazrat Nizamuddin Junction, the vehicle was intercepted due to the non-mention of the vehicle number in the e-way bill, despite producing the invoice and bilty. It was emphasized that the omission was unintentional and not for tax evasion purposes. The lack of Appellate Tribunal formation under Section 109 of the Act was cited as a reason for filing a writ petition instead of a second appeal under Section 112.

2. The Standing Counsel contended that a pre-deposit of 20% of the amount is mandatory for appeal maintainability under sub-section (8) of Section 112. In response, the petitioner's counsel highlighted that the tax and penalty amount assessed under Section 129(3) had been fully paid as evidenced by challan and statements in the writ petition.

3. The court acknowledged the need for further examination of the matter and granted time for the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. The stay on the recovery of the remaining amount mentioned in the Form GST MOV-9 order dated 14.09.2019 was upheld, considering the payment of the assessed tax amount following the seizure.

This judgment reflects a case involving procedural and substantive tax law issues, focusing on compliance requirements, appellate jurisdiction, and the payment of assessed tax and penalties. The court's decision to allow further submissions and stay recovery indicates a balanced approach to addressing the legal complexities raised in the petition.