9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 733 - HC - GSTDetention of vehicle alongwith the goods - refund of amount of tax deposited by the petitioner - stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is that the petitioner had failed to furnish any explanation - HELD THAT - Nothing survives in the present petition at this stage as the order having been passed against the petitioner way back on February 18, 2018, the petitioner had appropriate remedy to challenge the same by filing appeal. Once demand has been raised against the petitioner after passing of the order by the competent Authority, no question arises for refund of the amount unless the order is set aside - the present petition is dismissed.
Issues:
Prayer for quashing proceedings initiated in response to a notice for detaining goods carried by a vehicle and for refund of tax amount deposited by the petitioner before any order is passed. Analysis: The writ petition sought to quash proceedings initiated following the detention of goods-carrying vehicle based on a notice dated February 13, 2018, and requested the conclusion of proceedings for refunding the tax amount deposited by the petitioner before any order was issued. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, contended that the petitioner failed to provide any explanation. The proceedings were finalized through an order under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on February 18, 2018. It was highlighted that the petitioner had the option to appeal under Section 107 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 against the order. The court observed that since an order had already been issued against the petitioner on February 18, 2018, and the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge it by filing an appeal, there was no valid reason for the petition to continue at this stage. The court emphasized that once a demand is raised against the petitioner following an order by the competent authority, there is no basis for refunding the amount unless the order is overturned. Consequently, the court dismissed the present petition in light of the aforementioned considerations.
|
