M/S Maa Kamakhya Drug House And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25291 of 2019, had passed a common order to dispose of all pending writ petitions concerning seizures during the relevant period. This order was intended to obviate inconsistency in the application of law and avoid multiple appeals. Consequently, the present proceedings were found to have been terminated by the Supreme Court's order. The Court acknowledged the petitioners' prayer to institute or pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. The State's counsel had no objection to this, provided the remedy was availed in accordance with law. Therefore, the Court dismissed the present petition, granting the petitioners liberty to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Maa Kamakhya Drug House and Another, filed a writ petition challenging a seizure order (No. 36 dated 23.02.2018) and a consequential notice (No. 35 dated 23.02.2018) issued by Respondent No. 4 under Sections 129(1) and 129(3) respectively of the U.P. GST Act, 2017. The State's 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 to dispose of all pending writ petitions concerning seizures during the relevant period, aiming to ensure consistency in law application and avoid multiple appeals. The petitioners' counsel then sought permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's order in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25291 of 2019 concerning identical seizures during the relevant period? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners sought permission to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned seizure order and consequential notice, indicating a desire to avail the appellate process rather than having the writ petition decided on merits in light of the Supreme Court's order. Respondent's contention: The State's counsel submitted that the Supreme Court's order in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition had concluded matters of seizure during the relevant period, deeming all pending writ petitions accordingly. The State had no objection to the petitioners pursuing the statutory remedy of appeal if availed in accordance with law.