M/S Shree Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The High Court held that the present writ petition stood terminated by the order of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25291 of 2019. The Supreme Court's order had addressed identical matters concerning the seizure of goods during the relevant period, aiming to ensure consistency in the application of law and avoid multiple appeals. Therefore, the High Court found no necessity to adjudicate on the petitioner's prayer to read down the proviso to Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's request to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal, and with no objection from the State, granted liberty to do so. The operative direction was to dismiss the present petition with the liberty to pursue the statutory appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Enterprises, filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a mandamus to read down the proviso to Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act. The petitioner sought to ensure that no order of detention or seizure of goods or conveyance be passed without issuing a show cause notice. The State, represented by the Standing Counsel, submitted that an identical issue had been considered by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25291 of 2019. The Supreme Court had passed a common order in that matter, deeming all pending writ petitions before the High Court on the subject to be disposed of accordingly, to avoid inconsistency and multiple appeals. The petitioner's counsel then requested permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The State had no objection to this, provided the remedy was availed in accordance with law. Consequently, the High Court found the present proceedings terminated by the Supreme Court's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proviso to Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act permits the detention or seizure of goods or conveyance without issuing a show cause notice? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the proviso to Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act should be read down to mandate the issuance of a show cause notice before any order of detention or seizure is passed. This contention is implied by the relief sought in the writ petition. Revenue's contention: The State's counsel submitted that the issue raised by the petitioner was identical to one that had reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25291 of 2019, had passed a common order disposing of all similar pending writ petitions before the High Court. This implies the State's position that the matter was concluded by the Supreme Court's order, and no further adjudication by the High Court was necessary on the merits of the petitioner's claim.