Vivaan Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The High Court held that the present proceedings were terminated by the order of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had passed a common order in an identical matter, which disposed of all pending writ petitions before the High Court concerning seizures during the relevant period. This order aimed to obviate inconsistency in the application of law and do away with multiple appeals. Therefore, the High Court found that the matter stood concluded in terms of the Supreme Court's order. The petitioner was granted liberty to institute and/or pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the present petition, to which the State had no objection if availed in accordance with law. The writ petition was dismissed in light of the Supreme Court's order, with the aforementioned liberty.

Facts

The petitioner, Vivaan Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the proviso to Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, seeking a mandamus to ensure no order of detention or seizure of goods or conveyance is passed without issuing a show cause notice. The State submitted that an identical matter had reached the Supreme Court, which passed a common order disposing of all pending writ petitions before the High Court concerning seizures during the relevant period. The petitioner then sought permission to pursue statutory appeal remedies against the impugned order. The State had no objection if such remedies were availed in accordance with law. The High Court noted that the matter was concluded by the Supreme Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proviso to Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act, which allows for detention or seizure of goods or conveyance without issuing a show cause notice, is liable to be read down to mandate the issuance of a show cause notice prior to such action? The petitioner argued that the proviso violates principles of natural justice by permitting detention or seizure without affording an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner relied on the principle that due process must be followed before depriving a person of their property or liberty. The revenue (State) contended that the matter was already concluded by a common order passed by the Supreme Court in an identical case, which disposed of all pending writ petitions concerning seizures during the relevant period. The Supreme Court's order aimed to ensure consistency in the application of law and avoid multiple appeals.