Cts Trans Solutions vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Cts Trans Solutions, a transporter, is aggrieved by an order dated June 3, 2023, which quantified a penalty payable by it. The dispute concerns the third consignment transported by the petitioner's vehicle. A show cause notice was issued on May 29, 2023. The petitioner's objection was considered, and the penalty was determined under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act. The petitioner sought the release of its vehicle, arguing that the owner of the goods had deposited the tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a), and therefore, the vehicle should be released as per Section 129(5). The respondent opposed the petition, citing the availability of an appeal under Section 107 and the petitioner's failure to comply with Section 129(1)(b) or Section 129(6).
Held
The Court declined to make any observation regarding the applicability of Section 129(1)(a) versus Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, stating that the petitioner has not yet exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal where such factual issues can be examined. The Court also noted that it was not shown that the petitioner had complied with the requirements of Section 129(6) of the Act. Consequently, no direction could be issued for the release of the petitioner's vehicle at that stage. The prayer made in the writ petition was declined, and the petition was dismissed. However, the dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from filing an appeal against the impugned order or approaching the authority under Section 129(6), which will be dealt with on its own merits.
Key Issues
1. Whether the goods transported by the petitioner fall under Section 129(1)(a) or Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act, and consequently, whether the penalty deposited by the owner of the goods under Section 129(1)(a) is sufficient for the release of the vehicle as per Section 129(5). Petitioner's contention: The goods fall under Section 129(1)(a), and since the penalty under this provision has been deposited by the owner, the vehicle should be released. Revenue's contention: The goods have been assessed under Section 129(1)(b), and the petitioner has not made the necessary compliance for depositing the requisite amount. The petitioner has also not availed the remedy under Section 129(6). 2. Whether the petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act and complied with Section 129(6) of the Act. Revenue's contention: The impugned order is appealable under Section 107, and the petitioner has not availed this remedy or complied with Section 129(6).
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 107, Section 129(1)(a), Section 129(1)(b), Section 129(5), Section 129(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126316-DB Court No. - 74 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 798 of 2023 Petitioner :- Cts Trans Solutions Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Naveen Chandra Gupta,Arjit Gupta,Manish Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- CSC Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Petitioner claims to be a transporter and is aggrieved by an order, contained in Annexure 2, dated 3.6.2023 which quantified the amount of penalty payable by it. It appears that a prayer is also made for release of the vehicle on the ground that the owner of the offending goods has also deposited the amount of tax. Perusal of the records would reveal that three consignments were to be transported by the vehicle in question and the issue primarily is with respect to the third consignment. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 29.5.2023 (wrongly mentioned in the notice as 29.6.2023). After considering the petitioner's objection the liability to pay penalty has been determined as the goods of petitioner has been treated to be falling under Section 129(1)(b) of the GST Act. Counsel for the petitioner states that the goods of the petitioner would fall under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act and since the penalty determined therein has already been deposited by the owner of the goods, as such, the vehicle itself is liable to be released. Reliance is placed upon sub- section (5) of Section 129 of the Act. On behalf of respondents petition is opposed on the ground that the order impugned is appealable in terms of Section 107 of the Act. It is further pointed out that since the petitioner has been assessed under Section 129(1)(b), therefore, necessary compliance has not been made by the petitioner for depositing requisite amount and, therefore, the vehicle itself cannot be released. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has not availed of the remedy under Section 129(6) of the Act.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
So far as the petitioner's contention with regard to applicability of Section 129(1)(a) viz-a-viz 129(1)(b) of the Act is concerned, we are not inclined to make any observation in that regard as the petitioner is yet to exhaust statutory remedy of appeal where all such factual issues can be examined. It is otherwise not shown to the Court that the petitioner has complied with the requirement of Section 129(6) of the Act. In such view of the matter, no direction can be issued for release of the petitioner's vehicle at this stage. Prayer made in the writ petition is accordingly declined and the writ petition is dismissed. Dismissal of this petition, however, will not preclude the petitioner from filing an appeal against the impugned order and also from approaching the authority in terms of Section 129(6) of the Act, which shall be dealt with on its own merits and in accordance with law. Order Date :- 13.6.2023 Ranjeet Sahu RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.