M/S Everest Trading Co. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad (respondent no. 4) to decide the petitioner's appeal pending before him within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. The Court implicitly acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the appellate authority's power to release goods by directing the appeal to be decided, but did not explicitly rule on the extent of the appellate authority's powers concerning the release of seized goods. The operative direction was to decide the appeal within the stipulated timeframe.
Facts
M/s Everest Trading Co. (petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the seizure of its goods and vehicle. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad (respondent no. 4) against the order leading to the seizure. However, the petitioner contended that the appellate authority lacked the power to release the seized goods and vehicle. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 to release the goods and vehicle upon payment of tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and also sought a direction for the appellate authority to decide its pending appeal within a specified time. The Special Counsel for the respondents had no objection to the prayer.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to release seized goods and vehicles under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in an appeal against the seizure order? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the appellate authority lacks the power to release seized goods and vehicles, necessitating a direction for the release upon payment of tax and penalty. The petitioner also sought a direction for the speedy disposal of its appeal. The revenue (respondent) did not contest the petitioner's prayer for a time-bound disposal of the appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1384 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Everest Trading Co. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nishant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Ghaziabad as respondent no.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1 as well as Sri C. B. Tripathi, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayer: "A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 3 to release the goods and vehicle bearing registration No. U. P. 17-AT-0644, on payment of tax and penalty by petitioner under clause (a) of Section 129 (1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; B. Issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; C. Award costs of the petition to the petitioners." Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed us that the petitioner has preferred an
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.