M/S Shree Laxmi Tea And Trading Co. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in an identical matter, had passed a common order disposing of all pending writ petitions before the High Court concerning seizures during the relevant period. This Supreme Court order aimed to ensure consistency in the application of law and avoid multiple appeals. Consequently, the present writ petition was deemed to have been terminated by the Supreme Court's decision. The petitioner's counsel then sought permission to institute or 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. Therefore, the Court dismissed the present proceedings with the liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Laxmi Tea And Trading Co., filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a writ of Mandamus to read down the proviso to Section 129(1) of the Central GST Act. The petitioner sought to ensure that no order of detention or seizure of goods or conveyance would be passed without providing an opportunity of hearing. The State's counsel informed the Court that an identical matter had reached the Supreme Court, which had passed a common order disposing of all pending writ petitions before the High Court concerning seizures during the relevant period. The Supreme Court's order aimed to ensure consistency in the application of law and avoid multiple appeals. The petitioner's counsel then requested permission to pursue statutory remedies against the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proviso to Section 129(1) of the Central GST Act, which allows for detention or seizure of goods or conveyance, should be read down to mandate an opportunity of hearing before such an order is passed? The petitioner argued that the proviso, as it stands, violates principles of natural justice by permitting seizure without prior hearing. The petitioner relied on the general principle that no order adversely affecting a party should be passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard. The State contended that the matter was already concluded by an order of the Supreme Court in a similar case, which disposed of all pending writ petitions related to seizures during the relevant period. The State submitted that the Supreme Court's order aimed to bring uniformity and avoid multiplicity of litigation.