M/S S.R. Sales vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The High Court was of the prima facie opinion that it was not a fit case for exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction. This was because the petitioner had been transporting the seized goods in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Court observed that it was open for the petitioner to either obtain the release of the goods as directed by the impugned order, challenge the order in appeal, or await the final determination of the assessment/penalty. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed with these observations.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s S.R. Sales, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 02.11.2018, issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act. This order proposed the deposit of tax and penalty for the release of seized goods. The petitioner was transporting the seized goods in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The High Court heard arguments from the petitioner and the respondents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in a case where the petitioner was transporting seized goods in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. GST Act? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order proposing tax and penalty for the release of seized goods. Respondent's contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner was transporting goods in contravention of the Act, implying that the High Court should not interfere.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1446 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S S.R. Sales Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 02.11.2018 issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 129(3) of the U.P. GST Act proposing the amount of tax and penalty to be deposited for the purposes of release of the seized goods.
Prima facie, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter as the petitioner had been transporting the seized goods in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
It is open for the petitioner to either get the goods release as directed by the impugned order or to challenge it in appeal or alternatively wait for the final determination of the assessment / penalty.
The petition is dismissed with the above observations.
Order Date :- 14.11.2018 SK Srivastava . (Ashok Kumar,J.) (Pankaj Mithal,J.)
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.