M/S Verma Roadways vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Held
The Court held that the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the petitioner's counsel that the goods, which were detained and formed the basis of the notice under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, had already been released pursuant to an interim order of the Court. Since the petitioner themselves stated that the writ petition no longer survives, the Court found no reason to proceed with the matter. The ratio of the decision is that if the petitioner concedes that their challenge is no longer necessary due to subsequent events (like release of goods), the Court will dismiss the petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge any consequential order, if passed, before the appropriate forum.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Verma Roadways, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 14.09.2018 issued by respondent no. 3 under Section 129(3) of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. This notice proposed to levy tax and penalty on detained goods. The petitioner sought to challenge the validity of this notice. During the pendency of the writ petition, an interim order was passed by the High Court, leading to the release of the goods. The petitioner stated that, with the goods released, the writ petition no longer survives.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication given the release of goods under an interim order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition does not survive as the goods, which were the subject of the detention and the notice, have already been released pursuant to an interim order passed by the Court. Therefore, the primary purpose of the challenge has been addressed. Respondent's contention: The respondent (State of U.P. and others) did not record any specific argument in the judgment regarding the survival of the writ petition. The judgment notes the submission made by the petitioner's counsel.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1267 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Verma Roadways Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the validity of the notice dated 14.09.2018 issued by respondent no.3, under Section 129(3) of U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, proposing to levy tax and penalty on the goods detained.
On the strength of the interim order passed by this Court in this petition, the goods have already been released subject to condition imposed, therefore, counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition does not survive.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the consequential order, if any, in the appropriate forum.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 A.Kr.* [Ashok Kumar, J.] [Pankaj Mithal, J.]
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.