Ashwini Jain vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the heading of Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which reads "Detention, seizure and release of goods and conveyances in transit," is wide enough to encompass the vehicle that was seized along with the goods. Therefore, the writ petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle, could not escape liability for the penalty imposed for its release. The Court reasoned that the petitioner could not claim a segregated liability and must follow the procedure prescribed for the release of the vehicle under the Act. The writ petition was dismissed based on these observations. However, the dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to avail any statutory appellate remedy available under the law.
Facts
The petitioner, Ashwini Jain, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his vehicle, which was detained by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad)-3, Kanpur, on November 8, 2019. A penalty was imposed under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the release of both the goods and the vehicle. The petitioner contended that as the registered owner, he had no connection with the goods and was therefore not liable to pay the penalty under Section 129(3). The State was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel.
Key Issues
1. Whether the registered owner of a vehicle detained under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to pay the penalty imposed for the release of the vehicle, irrespective of their involvement with the goods being transported. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that he was merely the registered owner of the vehicle and had no connection with the goods contained within it. Consequently, he contended that he should not be held liable for the penalty imposed under Section 129(3) of the Act for the release of the goods and the vehicle. Revenue's argument: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondent (State). However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue's position was that the provisions of Section 129 apply broadly to the detention, seizure, and release of goods and conveyances in transit.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1321 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ashwini Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Biswanath Somadder,J.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the instant writ petition, it appears that the writ petitioner has approached this Court essentially seeking release of his vehicle which has been detained by the Assistant Commissioner (Mobile Squad)-3, Kanpur, on 8th November, 2019. The pleadings in the writ petition reveals that a penalty has been imposed for the purpose of release of the goods as well as the vehicle in terms of section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. According to the learned advocate for the writ petitioner, his client is merely a registered owner of the vehicle and has nothing to do with the goods which were contained in the vehicle. As such, he is not liable to pay the amount in terms of section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. For the purpose of deciding the matter, we need to merely look at the heading of the provision contained und
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.