M/S Maa Mundeshwari Traders vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that it would not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter. The reasoning was that the statutory authorities had already passed an order directing the release of the seized goods and vehicle under Sub-Section 3 of Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, conditional upon the petitioner furnishing the required security and indemnity bond as per Clauses a, b, and c of Sub-Section 1 of Section 129. The Court found no reason to interfere when the statutory mechanism for release was already in motion. The petitioner was advised to comply with the statutory requirements to secure the release of the goods and vehicle. The Court also noted that any amount deposited by the petitioner would be subject to the final outcome of the regular assessment or penalty proceedings. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Maa Mundeshwari Traders, a purchasing dealer from Bihar, had goods and a vehicle seized on November 12, 2018, while in transit. The authorities directed the release of these goods under Sub-Section 3 of Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act, subject to the petitioner furnishing security and an indemnity bond as stipulated in Clauses a, b, and c of Sub-Section 1 of Section 129 of the Act. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief. The Court noted that the goods were already directed to be released upon compliance with the statutory provisions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when the statutory authorities have already directed the release of seized goods and vehicle upon compliance with the provisions of Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner sought intervention from the High Court. However, the judgment does not record specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel beyond the act of filing the writ petition. Respondent's Argument: The respondents, Union of India and others, implicitly relied on the actions of the statutory authorities who had already initiated the process of releasing the goods under Section 129 of the U.P. GST Act upon compliance by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1476 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Mundeshwari Traders Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aloke Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
The petitioner is purchasing dealer of Bihar. The goods purchased by him under transportation has been seized along with vehicle on 12.11.2018. The goods have been directed to be released under Sub-Section 3 of Section 129 of U.P. GST Act on furnishing security and indemnity bond as provided in Clause- a, b and c of Sub-Section 1 of Section 129 Act. Since the goods have already been directed to be released on compliance of the statutory provision, we do not feel inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter.
The petitioner may get the goods and vehicle released by depositing and furnishing the amount as required and in case such an amount is deposited it shall abide by the final disposal of the regular assessment/penalty.
The petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.11.2018 A.Kr.*
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.