Hindalco Industries Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Court No. - 47 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 278 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hindalco Industries Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Utkarsh Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the authorities under the GST Act dated 25.11.2022, under Section 20 of the IGST Act, 2017 read with Section 129(1) of the Act, 2017 which relates to deposit made in response to a notice issued under Rule 142(1)(a) FORM GST DRC 01. The records reveal that a notice dated 09.08.2022 was issued to the petitioner on the ground that movement of goods of petitioner was after the e-way bill had expired. The petitioner in response to such notice deposited the amount of tax and penalty under protest and prayed for release of the confiscated goods. The authorities have treated the deposit of tax as a voluntarily deposit of tax on part of the petitioner and by ignoring the protest contained in reply of the petitioner has proceeded to release the goods etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the deposit of tax and penalty was under protest the authorities were required to pass proper orders under Section 129(3) of the GST Act and that the authorities have erred in treating the deposit to be a voluntarily deposit of tax on part of the petitioner, without there being any protest. It is also submitted that such action of the department has deprived the petitioner of its right to prefer statutory appeal against the determination so made by the assessing authority. Submission is that impugned action suffers from complete non application of mind on part of the authority concerned and the departmental remedy of appeal has thus, been denied to the petitioner. Learned State Counsel does not dispute the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner on the aforesaid aspect and states that the competent authority shall pass an appropriate order referable to Section 129(3) of the GST Act and it shall be open for the petitioner to pursue its remedy, accordingly. In view of the stand so taken by the respondents, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition with a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to consider the protest made by the petitioner while depositing the amount of tax and penalty and pass

appropriate orders under Section 129(3) of the GST Act within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of copy of this order. It goes without saying that the statutory remedy available to the petitioner would then be open to be availed in accordance with law. The order impugned in the writ petition shall abide by the fresh orders to be passed in terms of our order. Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Ujjawal UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad