M/S Delhivery Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Delhivery Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the department under Section 129(3) of the GST Act on February 26, 2023. The impugned order was addressed to the driver of the vehicle. The petitioner contended that the goods belonged to them and that the vehicle's number was inadvertently recorded incorrectly in the transit document, despite all other required documents being in order. The petitioner argued that the order being addressed to the driver precluded them, as the consignor, from challenging it. The respondent argued that the consignor or consignee could challenge the order by claiming ownership and that any tax deposit would be adjusted against confiscated goods, thus not depriving them of appeal remedies.
Held
The Court found substance in the objections raised by the respondents. It held that the consignor or consignee would always be at liberty to challenge the confiscation of goods, supported by documents evidencing their ownership. The Court reasoned that the mere fact that the order was addressed to the driver of the vehicle would not prejudice the rights and contentions of the consignor or consignee. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was at liberty to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to entertain the challenge directly in the writ petition and left all questions of law and fact open for examination at the appropriate forum.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner, as the consignor, is precluded from challenging an order passed under Section 129(3) of the GST Act when the order is addressed to the driver of the vehicle, and if so, does this violate their right to appeal? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since the order was passed against the driver, it would not be open for the consignor or consignee to challenge such an order before the appropriate forum, implying a procedural bar to their challenge. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the consignor or consignee can always challenge the impugned order by claiming ownership of the goods based on supporting documents. They further contended that any deposit of tax would ultimately be adjusted against the confiscated goods, and therefore, the argument that the petitioner would be deprived of the remedy of appeal was misconceived.
Sections Cited
Section 129(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 47 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 292 of 2023 Petitioner :- M/S Delhivery Limited Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shubham Agrawal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. This petition is directed against an order passed by the department under Section 129(3) of GST Act, dated 26.02.2023, addressed to one Ajay Yadav. This order is assailed on the ground that the goods in question belong to the petitioner. Submission is that though all other documents required for the transit of goods were accompanied, yet the vehicle's number was wrongly recorded in the transit document, inadvertently, on account of which the impugned action is initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order impugned has been passed against the driver, it would not be open for the cosigner or the consignee to challenge such order before the appropriate forum. It is otherwise not disputed that the impugned order is appealable under the statute. On the other hand, Learned Standing Counsel submits that the cosigner or the consignee can always challenge the impugned order claiming ownership of the goods on the basis of documents evidencing their ownership, and any deposit of tax would ultimately be adjusted against the confiscated goods. Therefore, the argument that the petitioner would be deprived of the remedy of appeal in such circumstances is misconceived. We find substance in the objections raised by the respondents inasmuch as the cosigner or the consignee would always be at liberty to challenge the confiscation of goods along with the supporting documents evidencing their ownership and merely because the order has been addressed to the driver of the vehicle would not be to the prejudice of the rights and contentions of the cosigner or the consignee. In such circumstances, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order impugned by way of an appeal. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain a challenge to the order impugned directly in the writ petition. All questions of law and fact are left open for examination at the appropriate forum.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.4.2023 Ujjawal UJJAWAL PARJAPATI 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.