M/S Mahi Traders vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's goods had been released based on an interim order. The counsel for the petitioner then stated that the writ petition no longer survived. In light of these facts and circumstances, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge any consequential order, if passed, before the appropriate forum. The Court did not decide on the merits of the original challenge to the order dated 17.09.2018 or the proposed assessment and penalty.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mahi Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17.09.2018 passed under Section 68(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. This order directed the seizure of the petitioner's goods and proposed assessment and penalty. Subsequently, the goods were released to the petitioner pursuant to an interim order passed by the High Court. The counsel for the petitioner then stated that the writ petition no longer survived.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition survives for adjudication given the release of goods under an interim order and the petitioner's counsel's submission that the petition no longer survives? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner, through their counsel, submitted that the writ petition does not survive in view of the goods being released pursuant to the interim order of the Court. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions from the respondent (State of U.P. and 3 Others).
Sections Cited
Section 68(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1288 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Mahi Traders Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the order dated 17.09.2018 passed under Section 68(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act and U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act directing for seizure of the goods and for quashing of the notice dated 17.09.2018 of the proposed assessment and penalty.
The goods of the petitioner have been released on the condition pursuent to the interim order passed by this Court.
In view of above, counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition does not survive.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of 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.