Rvm Cycle PVT LTD vs. Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P. Lucknow And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is devoid of merits and dismissed it. The primary reason for dismissal was the availability of an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the improper consideration of their reply to the show cause notice could and should be raised before the appellate authority. The judgment in M/s Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Company was deemed not helpful to the petitioner in this context, likely because the present case involved findings of fact that are best examined in an appeal. The Court did not delve into the merits of the penalty order itself, deferring such examination to the appellate process. No specific issue was left undecided, as the decision rested on the maintainability of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Rvm Cycle Pvt Ltd, is challenging a seizure order dated September 10, 2022, and a penalty order dated September 14, 2022, passed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These orders were issued by the respondent-revenue following the seizure of goods in transit. The petitioner contends that their reply to the show cause notice was not properly considered before the penalty was imposed. The respondent-revenue pointed out that an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Act is available to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the penalty order dated September 14, 2022, is flawed because their reply to the show cause notice was not adequately addressed. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in M/s Gobind Tobacco Manufacturing Company and another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others (2022 U.P.T.C. (111) 1080) to support their claim. Respondent's contention: The respondent-revenue argued that the writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an effective appellate remedy under Section 107 of the Act, which allows the petitioner to raise all their objections.