M/S Mongia Steel Limited And Another vs. State Of U P And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioners, M/S Mongia Steel Limited and another, filed a writ petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated by a notice dated February 13, 2018, for the detention of a vehicle carrying goods. They also sought the conclusion of proceedings for the refund of tax deposited before any order was passed. The respondents' counter affidavit stated that the petitioner failed to provide an explanation, and proceedings were concluded by an order under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on February 18, 2018. The respondents contended that the petitioner had a remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act against this order. The Court noted that the order was passed on February 18, 2018, and the petitioner had the appropriate remedy to challenge it via appeal.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable at the present stage. The primary reason was that an order under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had already been passed against the petitioner on February 18, 2018. The Court found that the petitioner had an effective statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 107 of the same Act to challenge the order. Therefore, the High Court's intervention through a writ petition was deemed inappropriate. Regarding the refund, the Court reasoned that once a demand had been raised against the petitioner through a valid order by the competent authority, there was no question of refunding any amount unless that order was first set aside. The Court concluded that the writ petition was dismissed on these grounds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at this stage, given that an order under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was passed on February 18, 2018, and the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the same Act. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the proceedings initiated by the notice dated February 13, 2018, should be quashed and that proceedings for the refund of tax deposited should be concluded before any order is passed. They implicitly sought intervention by the High Court to address these issues. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to furnish any explanation, leading to the conclusion of proceedings by an order under Section 129(3) of the Act. They asserted that the petitioner's appropriate remedy was to file an appeal under Section 107 of the Act against the order dated February 18, 2018. They also contended that no refund could be processed unless the order raising the demand was set aside.